It's almost as if they were lying the whole time or something, and everyone who covered for them knew so and wants this to happen.
Hypocrisy is immaterial to authoritarians. All that matters is getting their way. All means are justified.
You guys have some ridiculous takes about covid that go completely against actual data so I have no clue anymore. Silvanus said the original vaccines are not providing much protection anymore so... yeah...
But the 14th amendment is there for gay marriage so why do you care about some other parts of the constitution in this discussion?
OK, if you believe the 14th Amendment unambiguously protects same-sex marriage, then explain to me why for 147 years, from when the 14th Amendment was introduced until 2015, same-sex marriage was not protected by the 14th Amendment.
And three of the Supreme Court Justices who're still serving disagree that those arguments are strong enough.
Except in the headline, which says, "no evidence". Not "In this study there is no evidence". Just "no evidence".
I'm a little more concerned about stripping away workplace protections and rights than I am about some businesses (very well insured) properties getting damaged.
And you'll get plenty of volunteers at a decent rate of pay without resorting to slavery
taptrial2.tumblr.com
And I see plenty of signs with "family members only" floating around. Your experiences are not universal.
Only when 4/9, now 5/9, are religious zealots.
Incorrect. If I get *my* way, people who don't want to get abortions even if it kills them aren't forced to. The same is not the case the other way around.
I made the argument that a biological parent is not required in order for an infant to survive, unlike pregnancy and fetuses.
You have literally never made an argument for forced birth that wasn't "at some point it's the moral choice". You don't define a time. You don't define circumstances. You don't define the good part you get for overriding somebody's bodily autonomy, nothing.
That's what it literally is. You're theoretically pro-abortion, what's your "deeper argument"?
Took effect *today*. Total abortion ban. Makes a ten week exception for rape or incest, a 20 week exception for fatal fetal anomalies (aka, if your fetus developed a condition where it *will die* after 5 months, sucks to be you. Live with your dying/dead fetus for 4 months), and if the pregnant person's *serious* health or life is at risk, and shuts down clinics.
Lived with a pregnant person, no it's not.
No, you just said a time. That's not "proof". Laws need arbitrary lines, and birth is arbitrary, simple, and basically impossible to get wrong. You got a tall fucking order to "prove" when it's okay for the government to override somebody's bodily autonomy and force them to be living medical equipment.
If personhood doesn't matter, if the fetus isn't a person, then why is it ever "bad" to kill it? We euthanize shit tons of non-human creatures over the course of our lives, sometimes for no other reason than "they got within swatting distance". So why does a non-person have rights over an actual living person *at any time*?
Because it's *not* a very nuanced discussion. The people who think is't baby killing aren't gonna be persuaded otherwise just because most of them happen in 3 months. I know this, because half the fuckers who voted for that Indiana bill wanted to get rid of the exceptions for rape and incest, and some of the votes *against* were because the bill wasn't a *total, "even if the pregnant person dies" ban*
You have to argue it in court that not allowing same sex marriage is indeed unequal, no one argued it until they did.
Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do basic tasks at the jail the prisoners can do? Can't see the link because it's blocked at work.And you'll get plenty of volunteers at a decent rate of pay without resorting to slavery
And I see plenty of signs with "family members only" floating around. Your experiences are not universal.☆ #1 mabel pines defender ☆
stabbyflower: “spaceshipsandpurpledrank: “” To clarify: slavery as “punishment for a crime” is legal across the US. These 5 states are voting on making it ACTUALLY illegal, even in prisons. These are...
Only when 4/9, now 5/9, are religious zealots.
Incorrect. If I get *my* way, people who don't want to get abortions even if it kills them aren't forced to. The same is not the case the other way around.
I made the argument that a biological parent is not required in order for an infant to survive, unlike pregnancy and fetuses.
You have literally never made an argument for forced birth that wasn't "at some point it's the moral choice". You don't define a time. You don't define circumstances. You don't define the good part you get for overriding somebody's bodily autonomy, nothing.
That's what it literally is. You're theoretically pro-abortion, what's your "deeper argument"?
Took effect *today*. Total abortion ban. Makes a ten week exception for rape or incest, a 20 week exception for fatal fetal anomalies (aka, if your fetus developed a condition where it *will die* after 5 months, sucks to be you. Live with your dying/dead fetus for 4 months), and if the pregnant person's *serious* health or life is at risk, and shuts down clinics.
Lived with a pregnant person, no it's not.Home
Lakeshore Public Media is Northwest Indiana and Chicagoland's Public Broadcasting Station since 1987www.lakeshorepublicradio.org
You'e only pro-abortion until you're not, without defining when or why it becomes not, and you're advocating a compromise based on "because other people want one". Pardon me for not being enthusiastic about your pro-choice credentials here
No, you just said a time. That's not "proof". Laws need arbitrary lines, and birth is arbitrary, simple, and basically impossible to get wrong. You got a tall fucking order to "prove" when it's okay for the government to override somebody's bodily autonomy and force them to be living medical equipment.
If personhood doesn't matter, if the fetus isn't a person, then why is it ever "bad" to kill it? We euthanize shit tons of non-human creatures over the course of our lives, sometimes for no other reason than "they got within swatting distance". So why does a non-person have rights over an actual living person *at any time*?
Because it's *not* a very nuanced discussion. The people who think is't baby killing aren't gonna be persuaded otherwise just because most of them happen in 3 months. I know this, because half the fuckers who voted for that Indiana bill wanted to get rid of the exceptions for rape and incest, and some of the votes *against* were because the bill wasn't a *total, "even if the pregnant person dies" ban*
Remember, this is the same party which called Fred Rogers an "evil, evil man" for telling kids that they were all special.
'Cause it's slavery, dingus.
Do you have any earthly idea just how powerful Power of Attorney is? Married couples do not actually have that over each other.
Mate, you said the Obergfell decision was rock solid. What other reason for the decision being rock solid still barely making a simple majority would you believe exists?
You are describing reality as it stands. I *already know* the other side doesn't want compromise, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE
That is irrelevant to the idea that you should force a pregnant person to stay pregnant. You've forgotten your original argument
Then you should fucking figure it out, because fuck if I'm gonna compromise with an undefined number
I already fucking have. The *entire crux* of my argument is that we do not force somebody to be medical equipment against their will, even if that means people die. The age of the person in questions is not relevant. If you're gonna tell me a pregnant person should be forced to risk pregnancy to keep somebody else alive, then you need to tell me why we shouldn't be forcing blood donations or liver transplants
Or you just leave the fucking law out of it. That way you don't need a buffer
INDIANA IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE PUTTING IN NEW LAWS, YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKWIT.
And that period should be...?
What, so is personhood just irrelevant for the pregnant person then?
Who the fuck cares? Nobody gives a shit about how polite you pretend to be when you aren't actually saying anything or taking any actual stance.
Just remember that only ten years ago in this godforsaken state, Richard Mourdock shot his own campaign in the head by saying the quiet part out loud (i.e. his statement that pregnancy from rape is "God's plan"). I was planning to go to that debate too for the specific intent of being there to hear him say stupid evangelical shit in person, but I ended up not going in favor of getting a head start at the pub...something of a shock when all my friends who had gone, walked into the pub laughing their asses off.
I’ll be honest, I think you made the right choice going to the pub instead of the debate.
...Laws aren't supposed to require someone to argue it in court. The 14th Amendment was not considered to cover same sex marriage when it was written, or for 147 years afterwards. And you're telling me that it's unambiguous.
!?! They literally wrote extensive dissenting opinions.
I condone the protests too. But condonement isn't organisation or direct responsibility.
"Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do things we can force people to do for free?"
Tbh when the goalposts are at "basic tasks" we get to the point that inmates have a duty not to let the prison become a living hell. While it could be ways off American prisons, that's how it's done with criminally insane people in Finnish mental hospitals for instance.
The goalposts weren't at "basic tasks" though-- he's recharacterising manual labour that way to make it seem more reasonable to make people do it unpaid.
If a pregnant woman is arrested could she potentially argue that being imprisoned violates the fetus' rights?
This is why courthouse protests cannot and will not work, those in positions to change policy simply don't give a shit. it's why a certain degree of creativity is going to be necessary to force policy change; in this case, malicious compliance with the assertion of fetal personhood to overload the judiciary system with costly procedure.
It's not about winning. It's about protest. Every pregnant person should sue for any instance where their fetus is not afforded the same rights as any other person.
