Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
Well,
That comes with a small caveat.
Once your under arrest, you have to submit.
That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself.
Shit....
Ok, I have to be really careful with this one, because it can be easily misinterpreted and taken out of context.
See, the majority of instances that I have seen, the citizen is being belligerent at one point, unnecessarily escalating the situation. Then the cop unnecessarily escalates as well. Both are idiots.
And it seems at this point, the public opinion is that whoever lives is the one that's unjustified. Quite literally it ends up being this. I'm confident that Mike Brown attacked the officer at least once. And had he lived and the cop died, the cop would have been justified. Had Trevor lived, then the story would be the reverse, and we'd have another homicidal black kid. This is because death has such a heavy social weight to it that even if the odds were 50%, and both parties are responsible, or even the survivor is responsible, rarely do we assign guilt to the dead party.
Saying you don't have to submit to authority cops don't have, doesn't mean your immune to authority.
You can't yell and scream at a cop making a valid arrest, then resist arrest, and claim police brutality.
-
The police need to understand that there is a difference between themselves and the authority they wield.
I take it you haven't met many actual human beings before.
-
@antiquarian said:
So the 4th amendment is optional now as long as you violate it for everyone equally?
As I recall, the actual SCOTUS ruling was that the 4th Amendment is optional if you're violating it to stop something really bad, like drunk driving.
I think that's the "probable cause" bit. Like you have evidence that something really bad is happening, and if you wait to get a warrant, it'll be too late. I'm not so sure these "check everyone"
lawssituations meet "probable cause" requirements, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever tested it in court. After all, they tend to result in traffic violations, and those don't tend to get contested very far through the court system.Edit: Clarified a bad phrase.
-
When they are in power, conservatives are every bit as bad.
Actually, it occurred to me that I let you
on me. But to be fair, I didn't explicitly state where I wanted them, but I was thinking not so much about what the people elected by progressives or conservatives do but what those voters wanted them to do.IME, progressives are disappointed that we couldn't "be China for a day" or equivalents while conservatives are disappointed that the Republicans are just acting like slow motion Democrats. Surely there are exceptions as always, so save your pendantry for someone who doesn't expect it, but that's how I see it.
-
Back on topic, a Democrat states a surprising opinion:
-
But but but they're being dishonest with their editing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCiD9_ICt44
Oh.
(The above video is nearly six hours long.)
Honest, unbiased observers of the situation cannot help but admire the excellent job that Daleiden et al. are doing to counter the Rules for Radicals playbook being used against them.
-
I think that's the "probable cause" bit. Like you have evidence that something really bad is happening, and if you wait to get a warrant, it'll be too late. I'm not so sure these "check everyone" laws, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever tested it in court. After all, they tend to result in traffic violations, and those don't tend to get contested very far through the court system.
That's not how I read it. I'm using MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, which appears to be available here- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444
Cherry picking quotes (Follow the link if you want full, in context)
Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint...
No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the Nation's roads are legion...
Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale -- the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints -- is slight. We reached a similar conclusion as to the intrusion on motorists subjected to a brief stop at a highway checkpoint for detecting illegal aliens...
In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So it is a seizure, no probable cause (They're stopping everyone), but it's used to combat a big problem, so we're going to allow it.
-
That's not how I read it. I'm using MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, which appears to be available here- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444
Sorry, I had some bad gramming. Edited my post to clarify. I can see how you thought I was saying something I didn't mean.
So it is … not probable cause
That's what I meant to say.
-
Planned Parenthood ‘fully compliant’ with law, Healey says - The Boston Globe
The attorney general’s office conducted an inquiry of the state Planned Parenthood in response to videos related to fetal tissue donation.
Attorney General Maura Healey says her office has found no evidence that the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts is operating the sort of fetal tissue donation program highlighted in a series of undercover videos released by a national anti-abortion group in recent weeks.
So much for that smear campaign.
-
So an investigation in Massachuessets of PP facilities in Massachuessets found that PP facilities in Massachuessets don't donate or sell fetal tissues and that exonerated the entire national organization? That's quite the logical leap.
Also of note, Healey's bid for the Attorney General seat was endorsed by PP. On mobile now, so I didn't look at campaign contributions, but I wouldn't be surprised if PP countributed to her campaign. Seems like a conflict of interest there.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if PP countributed to her campaign.
Indeed: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/08/foes_eye_ag_bias_for_planned_parenthoodHealey, who declined to comment, has been a poster pol for Planned Parenthood, crediting its endorsement as “a game changer for my campaign” for AG, according to a posting featured prominently on the website of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which donated $1,256 to her.
So much for the lack of bias from a top government official. [quote=abarker] So an investigation in Massachuessets of PP facilities in Massachuessets found that PP facilities in Massachuessets don't donate or sell fetal tissues and that exonerated the entire national organization? [/quote] Not to mention that the "investigation" wasn't all that thorough. From the article:Healey quickly cleared the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts of any wrongdoing after conducting a review at the behest of state Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover). But **she never looked into whether local research centers are paying for fetal tissue** [emphasis added].
“The review was limited to what we were asked to review,” according to a Healey spokeswoman.
Lyons said he’s weighing a request for a broader investigation.
“I view what the five videos have shown in a completely different light than the attorney general,” he said. “Clearly, it seems to me that we could have looked at other areas ... and we did not ask her to do that. But we are looking into the regulations for companies that are buying these specimens,” he said.
-
You see, I'm simply finding the arguments for abortion based on whether the fetus is a live human to be very contradictory
That is true, and it's why framing the discussion in terms of whether a fetus is alive or not is such a successful strategy for lifers. Meanwhile choicers try to keep the discussion centered around a woman's right to her own body, because if we say that this is about the government potentially being able to force some individuals to support other individuals directly with their own blood, body, and organs then the cognitive dissonance becomes that much higher for conservatives, instead.Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if all of the people who were arguing against opt-out organ donation in an earlier thread are here in this thread arguing against abortion, which seems hypocritical to me: they demand a high level of consent before their own organs can be used to keep someone else alive, even after they themselves are already dead, but have lower standards for the same thing in this case, and it's not clear why. I suspect some portion of them would use the argument that abortion is an active murder, whereas refusing to donate is just allowing nature to take its course, which I personally find to be despicable ethics, the same line of reasoning that world consider the priest and the Levite morally superior to the Samaritan in that old story.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if all of the people who were arguing against opt-out organ donation in an earlier thread are here in this thread arguing against abortion, which seems hypocritical to me:
I can't keep track of who's arguing what position, especially with the number of trolls around here, but that does not describe me. I am about as pro-life as anyone you'll find, but I am also pro organ donation. I opted-in, since that's the system we have, but I would not object to an opt-out system. (In my case, it may be moot; based on family history, barring accident, I'm fairly likely to live to an age where my organs will not be desirable. Of course, it's for the case of the unexpected accident that I opted-in.)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if all of the people who were arguing against opt-out organ donation in an earlier thread are here in this thread arguing against abortion
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am one of those. I argue against abortion because it is the end of a life. You stated that a pregnant woman who is denied an abortion is being denied the right to her own body. But in 99% of cases, that woman chose to have sex. Pro-abortionists like to style themselves as pro-choice. In my own way, I am also pro-choice, but I'm also pro-life and pro-consequence.
This doesn't conflict with my views on opt-out organ donation at all. In fact, they align quite nicely. In the anti-abortion setup, the woman has shown her consent to support another life by choosing to have sex. This is analogous to the current opt-in organ donor system in the US: if you want to help, you make a conscious decision to participate. An opt-out program would be analogous to forcing every woman to become pregnant on a regular basis unless she went and registered to be exempt.
Where is the cognitive dissonance in that?
Side note: I have nothing against organ donation, simply against organ donation being the default.
-
the woman has shown her consent to support another life by choosing to have sex.
I think you guys need to add some more lines to that consensual sex agreement then.
-
That makes sense to me, that if you are pro-life, you'd do anything you can to support it. I personally value freedom of choice more than life, to the extent where I would support the legalization of suicide, but I realize that's just my own opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone else on the matter.
Also, I'm sorry if I contribute to any of your confusion with my posts here. This isn't a matter I feel very strongly about one way or the other, it was just that I knew what the next counter-argument was in the series, and it didn't seem like anyone had made it yet.
-
Well you wouldn't see the cognitive dissonance, naturally. Pretty much the founding principle of cognitive dissonance theory is that the dissonance is such an uncomfortable feeling that people will go to any length to avoid it.
Anyway, dissonance or not, I know I stand zero chance if changing your mind here. I'm just saying that I think it's hypocritical. Not donating an organ when one is required is the end of a life just as much as abortion is, and if you can say that someone inherently agrees to carry a child just by agreeing to have sex there's no reason why you couldn't say that someone inherently agrees to become an organ donor by choosing to get their drivers license. Especially since getting your drivers license involves signing a form where the conditions are all laid out in careful detail, while it is my impression that a lot of young people's decisions to have sex are made in circumstances that would render a contract void.
How do you feel about the people who are trying to prevent a certain type of person from giving people liquor before asking them to have sex?
Regardless, I just don't believe that signing away your right to your own body should be legal, nor do I believe it is legal. If you entered into a contract to donate one of your organs, I don't believe there should or would be any point at which you would not be able to withdraw your consent, even if that meant the other person would definitely die.
-
How do you feel about the people who are trying to prevent a certain type of person from giving people liquor before asking them to have sex?
If they're trying to use abortion to prevent that... they're doing it wrong.
-
Regardless, I just don't believe that signing away your right to your own body should be legal, nor do I believe it is legal. If you entered into a contract to donate one of your organs, I don't believe there should or would be any point at which you would not be able to withdraw your consent, even if that meant the other person would definitely die.
They aren't removing life support from a fetus.
They are blending it, as if it's some offensive alien parasite that's a punishment to the woman for making a bad decision.
It wouldn't be like refusing to give up your organ post-death to someone who needs the donation to live.
It would be like not wanting to give up your organs after you die, so once you die, you pick a person waiting for organs and cut their head off.
I've had this argument where you take the fetus out and try to keep it alive, and I've been told by women's right activists that this is breaking the concept of abortion, but abortion isn't the right to end life support, it's the right to destroy the fetus.
They gave the example of rape, and not wanting to bring a mini-rapist into the world.
Well, fine. But then you'll have an argument to finding the living children of rapists, and murdering them.
I understand that their argument was extreme, but after reading that, I can understand why some people can be for partial-birth abortion. I can imagine that those people are for killing infants too, but since we can see an infant and see it alive, it's harder to convince people. They just don't want to be held accountable, or they think it's unfair that only the woman is held accountable, biologically.
There is NO defensible argument to actively killing a fetus.
Removing it intact from the body, and letting a charity try to keep it alive, maybe.
But none for actively chopping it up in the womb.
-
Meanwhile choicers try to keep the discussion centered around a woman's right to her own body, because if we say that this is about the government potentially being able to force some individuals to support other individuals directly with their own blood, body, and organs then the cognitive dissonance becomes that much higher for conservatives, instead.
What's ironic about that is choicers don't believe in a person's right to their own body in general. If they did, they would also advocate legalizing drugs (if you have a right to your own body, it's clearly your decision what to put in it) and prostitution (including deciding to put other people's body parts in it for money). There are probably some who do, but they aren't very vocal about it.
-
...because if we say that this is about the government potentially being able to force some individuals to support other individuals directly with their own blood, body, and organs then the cognitive dissonance becomes that much higher for conservatives, instead.
Only the imaginary cognitive dissonance that comes from assuming the people who disagree with you aren't arguing in good faith.
which seems hypocritical to me: they demand a high level of consent before their own organs can be used to keep someone else alive, even after they themselves are already dead, but have lower standards for the same thing in this case, and it's not clear why.
Because you haven't yet understood their arguments, apparently.
-
Well you wouldn't see the cognitive dissonance,
I asked you where the cognitive dissonance in my reasoning was, and all you can come up with is "you wouldn't see it? I take it you can't find any in my reasoning either, then.
if you can say that someone inherently agrees to carry a child just by agreeing to have sex there's no reason why you couldn't say that someone inherently agrees to become an organ donor by choosing to get their drivers license.
Let me start with a few questions:
- What is a natural consequence of sex for mammals?
- [spoiler]Pregnancy.[/spoiler]
- What is a natural consequence of getting a driver's license?
- [spoiler]None. It's a legal process, not a natural one.[/spoiler]
Can you see my point now? You are trying to link opinions on two different things that aren't as tightly bound as you'd like to think. Sure, they both deal with life and death, but that's where the connection ends.
How do you feel about the people who are trying to prevent a certain type of person from giving people liquor before asking them to have sex?
What the hell does that have to do with this conversation? Given that I've made it clear in this thread that I believe that there should be specific exceptions for allowing abortions, I'll just not answer this random question.
So, to sum up:
- 99% of the time, abortion should not be permitted because that pro-choice woman already made her choice: the choice to have sex. A choice which is known to lead to pregnancy.
- Opt-out organ donation should not be the standard. Organ donation is not a natural consequence of anything. Choosing to be an organ donor is great. However, steps should be taken to encourage people to sign up, instead of switching to an opt-out system. A person who chooses to do good is better than someone who is forced to do good.
-
I understand their points, but I disagree with them. We've got @xaade saying that pro choicers are inhuman monsters who only ever wanted to kill babies and never cared about women's bodies, we've got @abarker talking about ‘natural consequences’ as it that's something humans are bound by. I'm not trying to dismiss an entire side of the discussion here, all I'm saying is that those specific arguments are bull shit. To me, they seem like the type of things someone would have to want to believe. Like if they were trying to reconcile two incompatible beliefs of theirs, for instance.
-
Well, those are certainly fringe political causes, but I suspect they are more strongly associated with choice than with life. Especially prostitution, which I would feel comfortable saying something like “100% minus a couple of perverts of the people who support legalized prostitution are pro-choice” about.
-
@abarker talking about ‘natural consequences’ as it that's something humans are bound by.
The only reason I brought up natural consequences was to show that abortion and organ donation are two unrelated discussions. You're trying to mix them in a blender, and I was separating them like oil from water.
-
Let us examine the term ‘pro-life’.
Pro = in favor of
Life = that which lives
Either you do everything you can to sustain human life in all its forms, or your claim to be pro-life is fucking hypocrisy.
-
I've never claimed to be pro-life, only anti-abortion. And boy, would my position on hunting and the death penalty make your head spin.
Edit: I suppose a couple of my positions could be summed up as "pro-consequenseces". Gotta put a positive spin on things.
-
I've never claimed to be pro-life, only anti-abortion.
As far as my role in this argument is concerned, this feels like a win. Basically, now I can say “so, it's not about protecting the babies for you, it's about punishing women for their sluttiness”, which is the pro-choice version of checkmate.
-
On a personal level, though, I realize this is just a values difference. I personally am quite anti-consequences. To me, if something is a negative consequence of some other thing, it's still negative, and in my world-view negative things should be eliminated any time that it is possible to do so. As hinted at earlier, I mostly designate as negative those things that restrict people's ability to make decisions for themselves.
-
Basically, now I can say “so, it's not about protecting the babies for you, it's about punishing women for their sluttiness”, which is the pro-choice version of checkmate.
Ah, you're twisting my words to suit your view of my position. So it comes down to no matter what I say, you win.
Saying that I'm anti-abortion does not mean that I don't think the babies need to be protected. See, I can have a multi-faceted reasoning for my opinion. Stop trying to back me into a mono-faceted corner.
I personally am quite anti-consequences.
Basic logic would allow me to conclude from this that you are likely atheist then. God is very much pro-consequence.
-
saying that pro choicers are inhuman monsters who only ever wanted to kill babies and never cared about women's bodies
I don't believe I've said that.
I've said that you cannot make a good case that paints a fetus and a newly born infant any different from each other, other than passage through a birth canal.
Therefore, if people want to make the case about living vs. not living, I don't believe they have a good argument.
If they want to say that it's a matter of woman's vs. fetuses rights, that's more logical.
But I don't feel comfortable making that argument, so I personally find the killing of a fetus unjustified.
That doesn't make pro choicers inhuman monsters, but it does make someone who sounds gleeful at the news of a newly destroyed fetus inhuman.
To those who treat abortion as an necessary evil to prevent a greater evil, I have respect for them. I disagree, but I can understand how they arrived at their conclusion.
I don't want to make abortion illegal, but I don't want people thinking it's a normal thing and we should celebrate it, like it was some courageous decision for a woman to destroy her child.
Either you do everything you can to sustain human life in all its forms, or your claim to be pro-life is fucking hypocrisy.
I can say the same of people who say they are pro-choice and want tolerance, but agree that a child should be forced to abort, in order to preserve the child's opportunities for school and college.
Or the people that tell a woman that has an handicapped child that she made an immoral decision.
That's not pro-choice. That's pro-control.
It's all tolerance, unless you don't fit their ideas.
-
other than passage through a birth canal
Have you seen this trick? It is a totally awsom feature if nature! It definitely makes a difference.
-
@Buddy said:
Basically, now I can say “so, it's not about protecting the babies for you, it's about punishing women for their sluttiness”, which is the pro-choice version of checkmate.
Ah, you're twisting my words to suit your view of my position. So it comes down to no matter what I say, you win.
True. My trolling style is quite totalitarian. I still think I won though :)@Buddy said:
I personally am quite anti-consequences.
Basic logic would allow me to conclude from this that you are likely atheist then. God is very much pro-consequence.
For a long time, I told myself that I believe in god. Eventually I grew uncomfortable with the distortion of the word ‘believe’ necessary to support such an opinion, and I no longer describe myself as a believer. I don't feel like my actual position re the existence of god changed, just the words I use to describe it. I still have faith that Jesus, if he exists, loves me enough to preserve my immortal soul, regardless of my impiety, but if he doesn't I won't hold that against him.
-
Except when you have a C-section and take out the baby early.
Maybe we should have a 24 hour abortion extension on early c-sections?
I'm sorry, you can't convince me that saying birth is necessary is
anything other than people drawing an arbitrary line for personal
benefit.
-
Sorry, it seemed like your previous post was saying that. I mean, I agree that the people you described in that post are stupid and wrong, but at that point I couldn't think of any response but to dismiss it outright. I can't defend people who think that killing babies is a good thing.
What I can defend is the position that nobody should be forced to support anyone else with their bodies. This is why I feel that organ donation is a useful metaphor here, because it shows that the pro-choice argument can apply to fully-grown adults. Even if it came about that that I would die without an organ transplant, and you were the only source of that organ, it wouldn't be right to force you to donate it.
-
people drawing an arbitrary line for personal benefit.
There is nothing personal about this ... It is a natural thing. You need modern medicine to break that boundry, like you just provided in your example.
-
I understand their points, but I disagree with them.
The way you talk about them makes it sound like you don't understand them. Which in turn comes across as arguing in bad faith.
We've got @xaade saying that pro choicers are inhuman monsters who only ever wanted to kill babies and never cared about women's bodies
I often say that when pro-choicers start scolding me for not respecting a woman's right to do stuff to her body. I can't speak for @xaade, of course.
To me, they seem like the type of things someone would have to want to believe. Like if they were trying to reconcile two incompatible beliefs of theirs, for instance.
I get similar vibes listening to pro-choicers.
-
Either you do everything you can to sustain human life in all its forms, or your claim to be pro-life is fucking hypocrisy.
Like "pro-choice?" Misapplying dictionary definitions is banal sophistry. I know you're better than that.
-
Basically, now I can say “so, it's not about protecting the babies for you, it's about punishing women for their sluttiness”, which is the pro-choice version of checkmate.
Aha! I'll take this as an admission of arguing in bad faith. Or as an optimist of a TDWTFer might call it...trolling.
-
I really should stay out of abortion discussions. Sometimes I manage to control myself, this time not so much. Sorry.
-
This is why I feel that organ donation is a useful metaphor here, because it shows that the pro-choice argument can apply to fully-grown adults. Even if it came about that that I would die without an organ transplant, and you were the only source of that organ, it wouldn't be right to force you to donate it.
Your organ donation thing is less than persuasive to me. I agree that it's wrong to force someone to donate. But with respect to abortion, the "force" being applied is to prevent a harm (from the anti-abortion standpoint), which sorts of laws are all over the place. Obviously, if you don't accept that another person is coming to harm, this will sound ridiculous to you, but if you refuse to accept it for the purposes of argument you're just being a troll or a jerk by not addressing the real point of contention.
"His windpipe was inside the crook of my elbow. Who are you to tell me what I can't and can't do with my arm‽"
-
Ok, well I've got another argument that will be even less persuasive to you: that since this is not a type of harm that can happen to you, it is inappropriate for you to try to prevent it. The gist of it is that governments shouldn't be trying to enforce morality, just to mediate conflicts between citizens. The intuitive argument in support is “which morality should they enforce? Can you imagine having to live somewhere that my version of morality is enforced?”
-
Ok, well I've got another argument that will be even less persuasive to you: that since this is not a type of harm that can happen to you, it is inappropriate for you to try to prevent it.
Ooh, like someone murdering you or stealing your car! No harm no foul bitch! Oh, hang on, that's probably not what you were thinking...
The gist of it is that governments shouldn't be trying to enforce morality, just to mediate conflicts between citizens.
What if the baby carries half of my genome? It's at least as much harm to me as it is to the mother in that sense.
Can you imagine having to live somewhere that my version of morality is enforced?”
I have a good imagination. I'm sure if I were sober and had a fuck to give...I could.
Filed Under: But thought experiments are fun
-
You need modern medicine to break that boundry
???
How did we survive for all these years???
-
I can't speak for @xaade, of course.
Well, most of the time, I could just let you post.
But, with practice I've gotten better.
What I can defend is the position that nobody should be forced to support anyone else with their bodies.
I agree, I would never systematically force women to be pregnant, even if it meant the survival of the human species, after some horrible apocalypse.
Fortunately that hasn't come up. For now women can freely avoid pregnancy.
I suppose what you mean to say, is that women shouldn't be forced to burden the consequences of pregnancy due to not taken adequate steps that are readily available.
In other words, women shouldn't be PUNISHED with supporting a human being due to careless mistakes.
I suppose a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a child that he didn't want.
Or a person shouldn't be forced to pay for a family's needs after they injure or kill the provider of income.
Rape aside because that's like 1% of abortions. We can allow for that and argue it later.
-
I suppose a couple of my positions could be summed up as "pro-consequences". Gotta put a positive spin on things.
Positive spin my ass.
I mean, I'm not a pro-lifer, but I can understand the point. Whether a fetus is a human being is still a debatable matter, and there's a room for differing opinions. But "pro-consequences"? So it's really about you wanting people to suffer more for what you consider bad decisions? So even if it turned out that a fetus is a lifeless lump of cells, you'd still be anti-abortion, because goddamnit, how can all those people be fucking freely and not suffer the consequences? Even if it turned out drugs are actually a part of healthy and balanced diet, you'd still be out there hoping there must be some unknown disease to kill those junkies off?
And all in all, it's not about doing any good to the world, but about making sure nobody can get any pleasure and get away with it?
Jesus fucking Christ. Either you're way miscommunicating your stance, or you're a despicable fucking human being.
-
first paragraph
Well, there's difference between things that couldn't possibly happen to you and things that aren't currently happening to you, but on another tangent, if someone did try to rob our injure me, but didn't succeed, and I and they worked out our differences to where I agreed that there was no harm no foul (I have almost Zen-like apathy), I would resent anyone who insisted on punishing them just because what they did was wrong and they deserve to suffer the consequences.
second paragraph
As a child of divorce, with a close friend who's an adoptee, genetics doesn't mean much to me.
-
Jesus fucking Christ. Either you're way miscommunicating your stance, or you're a despicable fucking human being.
Or you're ignoring other points I've already made and taking that one comment out of context. It's ok, everyone screws up.
-
Yeah, I mean a) I don't think that people should be punished for careless mistakes and b) that is certainly not an acceptable form of punishment.
I personally think it would be better to institute universal welfare than to make any individual financially responsible for any other individual against their will, but that's not an opinion I'm going to try to defend here. I've trolled @boomzilla enough for one thread.
-
How did we survive for all these years???
Not that. You threat a fetus and a new born equal while they are not. By your own example you need modern medicine and it's advances like a c-section to equalize those. Logical conclusion is that by nature they are not equal or otherwise a species would survive.
