Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I dont think he stated at what time he believes life startsi guess not, but regardless, it still stands to reason that at some point, the being in the womb is human enough that you shouldn't abort it in most cases, but i guess not human enough to forbid abortion in cases of rape? it seems odd to me
How are they at odds? If a woman is raped or molested and ends up pregnant unwillingly, as a victim of a crime they should most certainly have the choice. Any woman that has given birth to a child as a product of rape or molestation and raised it as their own, regardless of how the child came to be, is one heck of a good hearted and strong willed person in my book. For any woman who doesn't think they can handle that, it is understandable but I would certainly hope they would at least consider adoption before abortion.i have a hard time understanding this stance. it seems to me that, if you're asserting life begins at conception and that the life of a human-to-be in the womb is equal to that of a born child, then abortion is and always will be equivalent to murder. how can you allow abortion in any case? would it be acceptable for someone who was raped to carry the child to term, go through labor, and then kill the born child? obviously not, so if their worth was equal as a zygote, what's the deal? i agree with the reasoning you gave here for allowing it, but i'm confused about how it fits into the pro-life perspective. not trying to have a "gotcha" moment or anything, it's something i've genuinely been wondering
We've seen democrats "Transition" away from fossil fuels.sure! by all means, there should be a plan, and there are plans. we have yet to meaningfully commit to a single one on a national level. that's why we're having this national discussion. here's the thing: we can do it. the tech is here. we can stop funneling resources into fossil fuels, regulate the emissions and waste of polluting industries, and subsidize efforts to modernize our energy sources and retrofit existing facilities to be energy efficient. we can hold manufacturers to higher standards in terms of emissions and efficiency. these are constructive efforts that we can and should do, and every step along the way needs working hands to build that future. we can't afford to be waiting on a unicorn here. maybe one day fusion will grant us cheap, safe, efficient, and abundant energy for everyone. maybe one day we'll have cheap batteries with incredible energy density that can power our cities from wind and sunlight alone all day long. but we would be fools to expect to start at the endgame, and this isn't something we can delay another half decade.
California has shown us their "Transition" is forced and ignorant of the economy and science.
You cannot force advancement simply because you desire it. You can encourage it, but taking the improper steps too early,
and not having a transition plan leads to power blackouts, loss of jobs, and death.
how does the act protect the companies from lawsuits? what kind of lawsuits? that seems like a major point in determining if its right or wrong for them to “hide behind the act”iirc it effectively prevents them from having legal liability for what users post on their site. removing this protection would cause companies to be even more strict with moderation because they have to be extra super 100% careful nobody ever posts anything they can get sued for
hell yeah comrade Annoying Orange is gleefully continuing nigh-genocidal practices, set in motion or enabled by previous administrations, targeted exclusively at latinos. couldnt have said it better myself
Because Biden is a dementia'd child enthusiast with segregationist history.
Also, unlike Biden, Annoying Orange doesn't threaten to suck your melanin like he's "Count Ain't-blackula" if you don't vote for him.
