Leaderboard

Jesus fucking Christ that is so naive you cannot possibly actually believe it. When you have to obviously lie to yourself to support your point of you then surely it would be easier to simply acknowledge reality instead? Doctors who want to continue being doctors (I.e. pretty much all of the good ones) in places where abortion is illegal will allow a 10 year old to have a baby. This is why said 10 year old could not get an abortion in her state, because the doctors there would have allowed her to have a baby. That is what really happened in the real world where real people live.

Not just the US, it is everywhere really. I am convinced that the free flow of information in its current state is absolutely detrimental to society as a whole. Most of us are simply not smart enough to deal with it. No, I don't know what the solution is. But I do think the result will be events that will lead to being forced to reduce your sphere of information. When only what happens immediately around you becomes important.

Nothing like forcing people to have kids and then not providing any support....fucking brilliant, what could possibly go wrong

Hi airdvr, I usually give your posts some credence. Now, I have to wonder if you live in the real world. Take some time, do some homework on the various state laws regarding abortions. When you finish, you just might want to retract that statement. Jerry Baumchen

$10,000 tax per cartridge. 2nd Amendment says nothing about a right to fire your arms.

And no one thinks they will, or that that should be the goal. What people DO hope happens is that we become more like other countries that allow gun ownership - but have less than 10% of the gun deaths we do. US gun death rate: 12 per 100K Australia: 1 per 100K Germany: 1 per 100K UK: .2 per 100K India: .2 per 100K

The Dr. who did perform the abortion was outed by the AG of her state, threatened with legal action, and now has to worry that some American idiot with a high powered rifle will assassinate her, which is the fate of others in the same posistion. Open your eyes Airdvr.

Yes. Exactly. That’s the whole fucking point. So please ask your Republican friends to stop writing cruel laws that hurt children even more than simply having the negligent parent already does.

I'm baffled and disgusted that you can somehow reason your way to this sentence. You could have the worst parents in the world - Ones teaching their kids to go out and fuck anything moving as soon as possible and you know who bears the responsibility if that happens? THE FUCKING RAPIST. The person sick enough to perform a criminal act on a child. It's not something you can pass off by saying 'oh, I didn't know it was wrong!' or 'but she wanted it!' Jesus fucking Christ.

The fact he objectifies his daughter is a pretty clear sign he doesn't care for her or her wellbeing.

Please. If the mother (who knew about the abuse) had reported the rape to the authorities the child would have seen a doctor and a D & C would have been ordered. Instead...this https://fox59.com/news/national-world/everything-they-are-saying-against-him-is-a-lie-mother-of-10-year-old-rape-victim-defends-suspect-to-reporter/ But that's a whole 'nother thread.

In was in his "going to Mexico" demands

And desperate pregnant women, some as young as 10. So there's that, too.

That party is coming to an end. Water reservoirs through the entire SW basin is at the verge of collapse. Drought has dropped water levels and the head of hydro power available for 15 years now. I was reading about the drought in Texas and how ranchers are selling off stock again.For the third straight year Texas will be an importer of hay. Even as herd sizes shrink. Heat and drought are decimating forage and cash crops. But at least there are lots of guns.

OK so you took it in a different direction. Let me explain. In the case of the pizza, a liberal is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces. Sure he could take two pieces, but he feels a responsibilty to not be part of the problem. So he takes one piece, in the hopes that if everyone else takes one piece like he is doing, even though it leaves him a little hungry. That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone will only take one piece. They still might run out. But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out taking one piece, he helps that happen. The conservative is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces - just like the liberal does. But the conservative looks at it a different way. He figures he will take four slices because he is hungry. And perhaps there might not be enough for everyone in that case, but his #1 priority is getting enough pizza. And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way there will be enough - but as long as he gets his pizza before they run out, he 'wins.' Let the people who lose deal with their slowness and be more aggressive next time. Now this is an analogy. There is really no pizza. The pizza was an analogy to our current approach of using the environment as a "free dump." So let's look at this in that light. The below is the analogous comparison. The liberal looks at the CO2 emissions that we are generating. He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can. So he does what he can to reduce the CO2 that he/his family/his business/his town/his state/his country emits. Sure he could keep emitting as much as he can, but he feels a responsibility to not be part of the problem. So he reduces his emissions, even if it leaves him a little poorer. That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone else will reduce theirs. They still might have problems. But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out emitting less CO2, he helps that happen. The conservative is going to look at the CO2 emissions that we are generating. He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can - just like the liberal does. (I am making the assumption here that the conservative is not a climate change denier,) But the conservative looks at it a different way. He figures he will emit as much CO2 as he can because it's cheaper for him - his gas car is slightly cheaper, a gas furnace is cheaper than a heat pump, avoiding getting solar saves money, his car is more convenient than the train. And perhaps there will be problems in the future if everyone takes his approach, but his #1 priority is getting more money. And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way they will achieve a significant reduction. After all, "Wow, a whole 24 countries?" Think of "the money and effort they saved by not taking climate action!" And as long as he gets richer than other people, and as long as he dies before the climate gets REALLY bad, he 'wins.' Sure, that can work. That in the context of climate is a ruinous carbon tax, such that if you are one of the gluttons, you lose a lot of money. That way the people helping save the pizza are not impacted, but the gluttons are - and they have an incentive to reduce their gluttony if they still want access to that pizza. So either you really proposed that, which would be something I could support if it's done well - or you missed the analogy that the free pizza is the ability of our environment to deal with our waste. It is effectively a free dump. Charging the gluttons to use the dump ends their freeloading.

Those who would force a rape victim to give birth against her will are just as evil as the rapist.

Let's not forget that Republicans voted against expanding the Child Tax Credit, against increased funding for baby formula, and against paid family and medical leave. Claiming to be pro-family is pure hypocrisy. It's just about control.

You have two parties here. One has been working nonstop to take away women's rights. A second has been working to protect them. They have succeeded for over 50 years - and they just suffered a defeat. So you think that makes them the same. OK then.

I simply don't see how forcing a rape victim to go through 9 months of pregnancy, totally disrupt her life, and then be forced to give birth to her rapist's child can be considered anything but cruel, unusual, and a total and complete violation of her rights. Maybe someone can explain.