I have a secret that might change your life. Are you ready for it? You don't need an excuse to eat cake. They sell them at the store, and you can literally just walk right in and buy one any day of the year. Most likely, no one will even question you on it!
Feminism is one big motte and bailey argument. They make all sorts of outlandish claims like patriarchy theory and rejection of due process, but if you reject those, then they're suddenly all "B-But feminism just means equal rights! You don't disagree with equal rights, do you?" instead.
So you only need to be afraid if you're sexually harassing people, but Anita is advocating a system based on the presumption of guilt that doesn't take intent into consideration, and laughed off concern that it would result in a kangaroo court that turns people's lives upside-down at the slightest provocation with a joke about it's totally fine because the same thing happened to her? Seems legit.
It is, by definition, the termination of a pregnancy after, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of an embryo or fetus. So unless by "abortion" you're referring to the very specific case of the expelling of a fetus after an incomplete miscarriage, yes, yes it is.
"False rape accusations are so rare it's derailment to bring them up." "You want to ban abortion? But what about the <1% of abortions that occur due to rape‽"
Language-acquisition is still just absorbing stimulus and fiddling about with structures that are genetically hardwired. No sort of self-concept or planning ability or anything that could reasonably be called conscious thought emerges for quite a while.
Because a person's "mind" isn't the be-all and end-all of their importance; if it were, it'd be better to kill a human infant than to kill a farm animal.
You're not just destroying "a few cells"; you're destroying the whole human. You might as well say there's no difference between killing the last of a species and killing any random animal.
You claimed that opposition to abortion was based on "the quasi-religious belief that they count as human [minds]". Where are you getting that from? Who claims fetuses have "living, thinking, feeling human mind[s]"? Because as it stands, you're responding to a pretty blatant strawman.
The probability that a given American will be killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack is not the same thing as the percentage of refugees who are terrorists. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 100% of refugees are terrorists. Let's also say that the refugees all move to Texas. In that case, the chance of the average American being killed by a refugee would be very low. On the other hand, let's say that only a few of them are terrorists, but a few of them get their hands on antimatter bo…
I guess I'm just not familiar with how the political system in the UK works. American politicians wouldn't be able to just make something like that legal; it'd violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Constitution supersedes any laws passed by Congress.
In case anyone else is confused, the bold sentence is using the singular "they"; the first "they" refers to the parents, but the second and third "they" refer to the kid. I had to read it a few times before it made any goddamn sense. This is the a problem with singular "they".
I hope the court doesn't side with her; that'd set an awful precedent. If they do side with her, get ready for a story of woman who abuses her husband and is forced to pay him a settlement, only to take half of it when they divorce.
Honestly we shouldn't be comparing them,; both of them areeach is just as guilty as the other. So we shouldn't compare them, but here's how they compare?
That women weren't allowed in combat roles was literally the reason the Supreme Court used to justify why only requiring men to register didn't violate the equal protection clause.
The case, known as Holden v. KOAA, asks for $1 million in damages and accuses the station, its reporter, its parent companies (NBC and Comcast), and other defendants of violating federal child pornography laws, invasion of privacy and negligence, and other allegations. I guess we'll find out.
He liked to budget carefully… so he gets to control what his partner can do… with his money! Remember, men: Her money belongs to her, and your money belongs to both of you (but mostly her).
Seeing as women not serving in combat roles was the SCotUS's reasoning for not drafting women being consistent with the equal protection clause, the current state of affairs is pretty obviously unconstitutional.
Do these airheads not get that there's a fucking difference between abortion and vasectomy that goes beyond just women doing one and men doing the other, and that they make themselves look like absolute fucking retards when they pretend otherwise? Do they have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money sarcastically introducing bills like petulant toddlers?
"Media sites" is a plural noun, but the "is" in "there's" is a singular verb. Your subject-verb agreement was off, same as if you'd said "the sun are hot".
No, but you don't understand. This is an exclusively female problem! White, non-transgendered, non-disabled men never have to kiss relatives out of politeness or feel uncomfortable at the doctor's office!
There are different kinds of FGM, some worse than others. Sometimes the clitoris is removed, but sometimes just the clitoral hood (the analog for the foreskin) is removed, and sometimes it's just a ceremonial pinprick. But you'll see feminist opposition to all these forms, because it's not about the severity of the procedure; it's about the fact that it's happening to females, and the fact that it's being done in other countries.
I don't remember where, but there is/was a culture where, once upon a time, there was a significant outbreak of lockjaw. As a result, they started pulling out everyone's two front teeth, so they could be fed through a straw and not starve to death. The epidemic eventually subsided, but by that point the procedure had been ingrained into their culture and they continued going it out of tradition. People would say it looked better, that they'd never date someone "looked like a beaver" (still had t…
It's lovely how they say only institutional sexism is the only kind of sexism that exists, only to turn around and call people sexist. By definition, individuals cannot be institutionally sexist; only institutions can.
Wow, what a shitty survey. Did they also ask men if they felt there was inequality, or if they felt they had two jobs? And who are these 33% of men who like doing chores more than watching TV?
Observe men are given preferential treatment in custody battles. Push for Tender Years Doctrine. Men complain that women are given preferential treatment in custody battles. Blame this on "The Patriarchy" ? PROFIT!
I'm open to the idea that both men should be allowed to decide not to financially support children they didn't want in the first place, but I think it's counterproductive to compare it to abortion, as many people (myself included) don't see that as a valid option.
That's this judge's interpretation of the law. I think a very reasonable case could be made that if, for instance, a mother decided to blind, deafen, mutilate, and cripple her child in utero, that she's harming not just a fetus, but an infant and a toddler and so forth.
That's really weird logic. I mean, even if, for whatever reason, you don't think a fetus is worth protecting, surely the infant the fetus becomes must be. Otherwise, you're left with the conclusion that the mother in that one joke who takes thalidomide because she doesn't know how to knit sleeves did absolutely nothing wrong.
The company has a bad habit of commemorating women’s holidays, like Mother’s Day, with flowers instead of females. Because women don't look like letters of the alphabet!
Acknowledge verbally and continuously. What does that even mean? Do you have to chant "I consent" over and over again? If you pause to take a breath, are you being raped?
There's some serious range there. From "I secretly aborted his baby." to "I masturbate when he's asleep." to "I have tons of debt I plan on saddling him with.".
So a Court can just make shit up, and as long as they reference it enough a later Court can't fix it? If it worked this way, nominees would never be asked for their thoughts on Roe, and there wouldn't be pro-choice groups frantically counting how many votes they have on the Court.
So if a SCOTUS said slavery was okay, and based a lot of later rulings on that, a future SCOTUS couldn't overturn that? I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has the power to overturn Roe; otherwise, it wouldn't be such a big issue in confirmation hearings.
Even worse, the Court's justification for how it somehow wasn't involuntary servitude was basically "Well, y'know, I'm sure Lincoln would've been cool with it.".
Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for almost 58 years before it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Roe v. Wade has been on the books for less than 42 years. The Court's decisions, even old ones, aren't set in stone. And an amendment wouldn't have to even touch on privacy to overturn Roe; even Roe itself acknowledges that prenatal personhood would cause its argument to collapse.
They forgot the part where they insist that the fact that Reds are allowed to see the lions or the penguins but Blues aren't allowed to see the lions is evidence that their parents think Blues are just too good for the penguins, and just the Blueiarchy backfiring on them.
I'm not saying there's any delineation between abortion and infanticide. They both kill the same entity, just at different ages. And no, we do not use "[l]evel of consciousness" to "justify killing perpetrated by humans". At best, we use inherent capacity for consciousness. If present consciousness were the metric, no one would care about infanticide or abortion, and the mentally handicapped would be viewed as subhuman.
It seems more specifically like gender egalitarianism. Basically, it's a feminist trying to co-opt what we've been saying all along as "just another feminism", acting like she came up with it.
Yep. "Don't want to pay child support for your rapist's child? Tough luck, child's best interests come first." "Oh, you strangled your newborn infant and tossed the corpse over a fence? No biggie, here's a slap on the wrist and you're free to go!"
But the law didn't specify mental illness, just that she be a woman. If your argument held water, that would be covered by existing manslaughter laws. And good luck to anyone who wants to argue […] are is in their right mind. Nobody who kills an infant is in their right mind. That's not the point.
if you consent to having sex with someone and part of the way through you say to stop and the person you’re having sex with continues to have sex with you against your wishes, that’s rape. Do they even think about what they're saying? If a man is having sex with the woman, and she "changes her mind" halfway through and doesn't tell him, is he a rapist? If she tells him and he pulls out 4 seconds later, was he raping her for those 4 seconds? What if she "changes her mind" 2 seconds before he clim…
given the political climate and what that would mean Huh? Could you clarify this part? It'd take a constitutional amendment Not necessarily. Abortion was legalized by a Supreme Court ruling, which could be reversed by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling. Not only is such a thing possible, but it wouldn't even be unprecedented.
Your links don't even support your claim. They're mostly objecting that they depict late-term abortions, not presenting any evidence that they're fake.
