I don't disagree, but on this particular issue, I'm a one-battle-at-a-time kind of guy. Abortion is a moral evil so extreme that the only remedy I can see is to eliminate it first and worry about the consequences later. Reestablishing family togetherness and monogamy as the societal norm would certainly improve child welfare, but that is a generational task and it doesn't mean we should wait a generation before outlawing abortion.
That may be shortsighted of me, but I can't get past the fact that in the United States alone this practice has already exterminated 85 million lives that could have been lived, 85 million people who might have been the next Isaac Newton or the next Shakespeare, however unlikely. Yes, many of those children may have grown up in poverty, but they would have grown up. Instead they were denied the opportunity to enjoy a life, and the opportunity to contribute, and we have been denied the benefits of what they might have contributed. Enough is enough.
It makes perfect sense to ask people who argue that banning abortion is in the best interests of kids, how they will prevent these kids from growing up in misery, crime and poverty.
This is not a reason to kill them. A life, once conceived, has its own intrinsic value that can't be mitigated by the material circumstances that might affect it. No matter how miserable or impoverished a person's childhood might be, that child has a potential contribution to make, and a right to live.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead," and that it is possible to make that determination before the child is even born. Even on its surface, that is obviously immoral, and that's before we get into discussing who makes those determinations and what criteria they use to do so.
But think of the impact this could have on Canadian abortion clinics!
Bonus: they accept pledges for payment.
Tony has entered the chat.
The very concept of nationalism is anathema to them, regardless of the nation.
Jesus Christ. The German language already has three genders, and each noun is assigned one of them. Unleashing this nonsense into English is dystopian enough: to do it with a language that has gendered nouns will create Orwellian chaos on another order of magnitude.
You have to wonder if these people really have a lack of self awareness this severe or if they're just being disingenuous.
Oh you're miserable? Blame men. Change your "sexual identity" so that you can tell men you're not attracted to them anymore. That'll show 'em!
Oh, that made you even more miserable? Well that's clearly also men's fault. You'll be less miserable if you keep blaming men.
What's that? You want kids but it's too late? Blame men. That will definitely make you less miserable this time.
More character development in that one clip than in 7 seasons of Voyager.
They're still pretty near the top of the stack in most European countries. It's just over here that they've faded from public consciousness. European authorities still let them get away with frequent mass-raping escapades and jail people who call them out on it for "hate speech."
Muslims are pretty fucking enthusiastic about raping children.
Who approved this? Comb the desert for them do you hear me? Comb the desert!
Did you also point out to them that they created the troon phenomenon?
Women have always mattered more than children in clown world.
Go ahead then. Give it a shot. None of us will stop you.
We're not going to fucking help, but we won't stop you.
They were probably just afraid they'd get robbed by peaceful demonstrators.
Maybe they think it "humanized" him.
Anyone asking me this is just upset they can't date me.
I was in the building while they were there, hiding under my desk. Its going to take years of therapy to help me overcome the PTSD I'm experiencing.
He was one of those who back in the mid-2010s called himself a "classical liberal," but he's gone on a bit of a philosophical journey since then. My major bone of contention with him was his embrace of utilitarianism, so I was glad to hear him come out recently and basically renounce that.
No.