I think he agrees with you and is trying to bring what you said back to the forefront. He's tapping the mic to make sure it works. Or maybe just tapping his fingers impatiently while he waits for the prison industry's problems to be addressed. After all, that is his day job.
You looking to be next, there, bird boy?
He rated the post as Disagree, I should've clarified that for context.
One of the first victims of the war between owls and octopods on one side, sea cucumbers and sea gulls on the other. We'll be victorious in the end!"Free Owl."
That's exactly what I said. If I murder someone, it's wrong because the law says it's wrong. But during a war or because death penalty or an abortion, it's ok because the law says it's ok. Life is not sacred, it's a legal term.
Well, I wasn't going to say "everyone but Bernie". That would have been silly.
I must admit that my guide for right and wrong is mostly the same that you: parents, society, religion, etc. I would never do something immoral or illegal, but I also believe that human morality is illogical and full of hypocrisy. It's like religion for me. It's the way I live but I also believe that it doesn't really makes any sense.
He's not saying his own guide is any better or worse, I think, nor what he thinks the law should be. He's making a statement that legality and morality are, at least in our society, not directly the same, and a basis of assuming all life as sacred is just a personal assumption, as there are clearly cases where the law is ok with death.
STFU Charlie.
DAE think their perspective is absolutely right and, having reached the apex of Truth, their chance of updating their beliefs from here on out is nil?
Try telling someone that just had a miscarriage that is wasn't really human and to say you lost a baby is an insult to "actual humans". Or the couple that has lost multiple still-born at 37 weeks that it wasn't a person. It may not be fully formed or out of the womb but it is not just pre-human goo.
Some people cease believing in souls, and viceversa.
Depends, though. I know someone who had a miscarriage, and has the (chosen) name tattooed on her wrist along with that of all her living children, who still thinks about the lost child often, and "celebrates" the unbirthday. On the other hand, my mother lost two babies and she never considered them children; sad occasions and a loss, certainly, but not a "person lost".
But I think its better to err on the side of "more irresponsible sex" than "women have to have kids they don't want because they can't afford an abortion."
"fairly typical of Charlie's way of talking about political issues". As he's said elsewhere, he deliberately words his statements aggressively, supposedly to "make you think". How this sort of phrasing isn't "needlessly antagonistic" aka "trolling" is beyond me. How it's supposed to ever convince anyone to his point of view escapes me as well. Don't worry about him.
*sigh* Very well, let's ignore the religious, moral or ethical side of things.
I don't know if you answered this before, but is there the possibility of having her tubes tied?
This is definitely where we are going to go next. Didn't have insurance to cover it until now, and I will need to use my PTO to do it at the moment, no vacation time. I'd like to not inconvenience the nice place which hired meA vasectomy would be far less invasive.
Oh hey, same here. I think everyone I know IRL that's been on Nuva Ring (and has mentioned it as a form of birth control they've used) had to stop using it due to side effects.
Bro-fist for this. If pregnancy puts my wife's life in danger abortion should be an an available treatment option.
I believe that each person has the ability to work on multiple things at once. It isn't an issue of setting aside less "important" funding problems until the more "important" funding problems are resolved. So one person, who might be concerned with both, might write separate letters to their representatives on the two issues, and might elect representatives that most closely matches their values, including their order of prioritization.
I don't understand this assertion. Whether it's run by the military or not, the government is still footing the bill, and your original question appeared to be concerned about the funding, not about how it was actually carried out. I need more explanation to understand what problem this would solve...
And it should be the woman's option to choose these things in the same way people should be allowed to make other bad long term health decisions, like smoking, drinking, and working 70 hours a week.
I don't recall serious petitions and attempts to make the government provide you free cigarettes.
Sorry 'bout that, I didn't fully develop my thought--I was presenting an analogous argument to the defund-decouple idea for PP--let non-government sources of funding take care of all the ethically questionable security operations, so that those that want to see them happen can fund them without morally compromising the taxpayers.
