That makes me angry. Actually, the whole situation in the White House makes me angry. Trump sold himself to a subset of Voters who believed he could do not wrong and were led astray by the luster of his name. All they saw was the good things about himself he promoted and didn't care about the bad stuff.
Admittedly, Trump is really good at selling his name: Look at all those buildings that have his name on them. He's consistently branded himself as "The Best" and voters didn't know (or care) they were being sold a bill of goods.
All the time since he was elected has only served to convince me more than ever that he is incredibly unsuited for the office he was elected to, and it makes me feel angry and depressed. I try to stay away from discussing politics for this reason, but hey, it seems like America might soon be quit of him. I just hope that we don't get a President Pence in his stead, even as I see the upside that he's nowhere near as popular as Trump among Trump's base. I don't want to see America ruled by someone who allows his religion to limit the right of other people, especially when it comes to women and their bodies.
In any case, the America Trump leaves behind will be a very much poorer one (and not only literally, with deficits blooming over 117 Trillion dollars), but one where racists and bigots are emboldened, and by someone so crude, know-nothing and willing to pander to those who support him that he made America less safe in many arenas.
As I heard a southern friend say once, "Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good Lord split 'ya!"
Abortion is not one of my absolute most important issues, but it seems that Kavanaugh's only decision in a case involving abortion rights was a very ugly one. Apparently an immigrant woman obtained a court order legally allowing her to have an abortion, but Kavanaugh made a decision that attempted to keep her in detention to prevent her from having the abortion when the pregnancy was early and the abortion would be safer--effectively holding her hostage to prevent her from obtaining an abortion that had already been sanctioned... and not just by the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, but by an actual court order issued to her specifically.
The claimed justification was that it was only delaying the abortion until the government could locate a sponsor, but it had already been trying to find a sponsor for a month and a half and still had failed. If Kavanaugh's decision was not overruled, she would have been held in detainment while pregnant for weeks if not months, making the abortion (which the woman had already decided upon) increasingly dangerous.
Even if we didn't factor in the precedent set by Roe vs. Wade, trying to subvert a perfectly legal court order on a false justification doesn't sound like fitting behavior for a Supreme Court justice.
Today, when asked about birth control, he also referred to "abortion-inducing drugs". People may not believe me, and that's fine. But after they finish with Roe, they are coming for the right to birth control. Mark my words.
@semiticgod. Added to which, said immigrant was 17, and I believe the baby was as a result of sexual assault, and this was in Texas, which says you cannot get an abortion after 20 weeks, and she was at about 18 weeks. He proposed putting off the abortion until she could find an American sponsor, or go back to a lower court to reconfirm her case, which would kick it back to him again later.
Luckily, his two fellow justices on the court with him dissented with his opinion, and let "Jane Doe" get the abortion she wanted.
- Pro-torture under Bush - Rules for business over people 90% of the time. - Perjured himself in 2006 concerning a Judge Pryor's nomination - Probably definitely met with Trump's lawyers to discuss willingness to obstruct Mueller before nomination - Tried to force a immigrant to not get an abortion - Anti-abortion - Personally encouraged (directed) Republican staffers to hack and use Democratic emails in circumventing the Senate to get judges confirmed under bush - Wants to loosen(!) campaign finance laws and allow even more dark money - Won't say if he supports the President pardoning himself (He supports the president pardoning himself) - Won't say if Presidents can be subpoenaed (He's against it, thus why Trump picked him)
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion,you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion,you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
AND: ... There you have it. His lawyer has now signaled unequivocally that Trump is above the law. He can't even handle the f*****g take-home test version.
Well it's a good thing for Trump that his own handpicked judge is going to sail through the Senate on party lines through these sham hearings and the deeply corrupt Republican party will happily allow him cover for his criminal acts and appoint him to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
And now, Republicans have something more to fear than the so-called "Deep State". The "Steady State". According to the New York Times Op-Ed, Senior officials inside the White House are acting to keep the Trump administration from being wrecked by the President itself.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion,you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion,you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Technically the consent is beforehand so I don't buy that. I would agree with you in the cases where there isn't consent, however.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion,you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Technically the consent is beforehand so I don't buy that. I would agree with you in the cases where there isn't consent, however.
"Technically" it isn't. It's the same with sex, you don't get the continue if the woman retracts her consent.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
Well we can talk about Canadian politics Since Trump is too busy golfing instead of moving ahead with infrastructure plans.
One of Canada’s biggest infrastructure plans has hit a huge snag lately as a judge kicked the Trans Mountain pipeline back to consultation phase, as it was ruled the Liberals didn’t consult indigenous communities enough, and over looked environmental concerns.
This pipeline is to help the Canadian economy by opening up more markets than the US to Canadian Oil produced in Alberta. It is also Canadian owner as Ottawa bought the project from Kinder Morgan, so if it doesn’t get built, Canadian tax payers are out billions for the cancelled project.
There is a lot of finger pointing going on regarding the fumbling of the consultation phase and what it means to Canada’s economy now that it is slowing down, with or without a new NAFTA.
It’s up to the Liberals to turn this sinking ship around, but how they are handling both the pipeline (incompetently) and NAFTA (calling bluffs) doesn’t make it look like they are up to the task.
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
And the argument on the other side, as I've said many times, seems to OFTEN (not always, but often) be that sex should have some sort of punishment attached to it. For women, of course. Which is why I am 100% confident that if they either eliminate Roe completely or simply render it pointless with a thousand cuts, the next step is Griswold and the right to birth control. And they aren't trying to hide it. And I'll also stick to my point the last time this came up, even though I caught a decent amount of flack for it at the time. If men were the ones having babies, you'd be able to get an abortion as easily as you can order a Big Mac at McDonald's. We'd start dispensing morning after pills at Redbox kiosks next to the Blu-Rays.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
And the argument on the other side, as I've said many times, seems to OFTEN (not always, but often) be that sex should have some sort of punishment attached to it. For women, of course. Which is why I am 100% confident that if they either eliminate Roe completely or simply render it pointless with a thousand cuts, the next step is Griswold and the right to birth control. And they aren't trying to hide it. And I'll also stick to my point the last time this came up, even though I caught a decent amount of flack for it at the time. If men were the ones having babies, you'd be able to get an abortion as easily as you can order a Big Mac at McDonald's. We'd start dispensing morning after pills at Redbox kiosks next to the Blu-Rays.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
And the argument on the other side, as I've said many times, seems to OFTEN (not always, but often) be that sex should have some sort of punishment attached to it. For women, of course. Which is why I am 100% confident that if they either eliminate Roe completely or simply render it pointless with a thousand cuts, the next step is Griswold and the right to birth control. And they aren't trying to hide it. And I'll also stick to my point the last time this came up, even though I caught a decent amount of flack for it at the time. If men were the ones having babies, you'd be able to get an abortion as easily as you can order a Big Mac at McDonald's. We'd start dispensing morning after pills at Redbox kiosks next to the Blu-Rays.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
I have no problem with the morning after pill. Just pointing out that not all conservatives think sex deserves punishment. However, I'm not sure having a baby should be looked at as punishment either. No other animal bitches about having babies or tries to actively avoid having them. Some do choose to kill their young if conditions aren't faviable for survival though. Maybe that's the same, maybe not...
To be fair, animals can't bitch about anything. For all we know, a chimpanzee would be just as interested in non-procreative sex as a human would; they just don't have the option.
Not that human behavior should necessarily have anything in common with the behavior of other critters.
This story is INSANE regardless, but this officer's story simply does not hold up. Even if we take at face value that she thought she was entering her own apartment, thought this guy was an intruder, and shot him on sight, how does that account for the fact that her key would not have worked in his lock?? Or if this man's door was unlocked, wouldn't the officer have immediately known she hadn't left her door unlocked?? The female officer is going to be charged with manslaughter, but I wouldn't place any bets on a conviction if she gets a typical American jury. But what the holy hell, a cop entering the wrong apartment at her building and shooting another resident dead??
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
And the argument on the other side, as I've said many times, seems to OFTEN (not always, but often) be that sex should have some sort of punishment attached to it. For women, of course. Which is why I am 100% confident that if they either eliminate Roe completely or simply render it pointless with a thousand cuts, the next step is Griswold and the right to birth control. And they aren't trying to hide it. And I'll also stick to my point the last time this came up, even though I caught a decent amount of flack for it at the time. If men were the ones having babies, you'd be able to get an abortion as easily as you can order a Big Mac at McDonald's. We'd start dispensing morning after pills at Redbox kiosks next to the Blu-Rays.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
Kamala Harris had another great moment, when she asked Kavanaugh if he could think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body. Of course, there are none. Even if you are opposed to abortion, you have to admit this pretty excellent framing of the issue.
Bodily autonomy and consent are the strongest argument. If a woman does not consent to having a fetus living inside her body, it must be removed. Whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
Consent? The child didn't consent to be born. The child is there due to the actions of the mother. The child did not choose it's location. Killing them due to a lack of consent in this scenario is the equivalent of dragging a crippled person into your house and killing them for trespassing because you didn't "consent" for them to be there. They had no control over the situation and no way out, it is the mother who crafted it. In all but rape cases, where the mother is also not in control of her actions, this logic applies.
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
The fetus isn't being born, it is being removed from a body whose owner is not consenting to the use. Also, the fact that the fetus may not choose its location is analogous to the woman not being in control whether the fetus lives outside her womb or not. Both are biological facts for the time being.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
And the argument on the other side, as I've said many times, seems to OFTEN (not always, but often) be that sex should have some sort of punishment attached to it. For women, of course. Which is why I am 100% confident that if they either eliminate Roe completely or simply render it pointless with a thousand cuts, the next step is Griswold and the right to birth control. And they aren't trying to hide it. And I'll also stick to my point the last time this came up, even though I caught a decent amount of flack for it at the time. If men were the ones having babies, you'd be able to get an abortion as easily as you can order a Big Mac at McDonald's. We'd start dispensing morning after pills at Redbox kiosks next to the Blu-Rays.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
I have no problem with the morning after pill. Just pointing out that not all conservatives think sex deserves punishment. However, I'm not sure having a baby should be looked at as punishment either. No other animal bitches about having babies or tries to actively avoid having them. Some do choose to kill their young if conditions aren't faviable for survival though. Maybe that's the same, maybe not...
No they’ll just eat them.
Something tells me if mother actually ate her child everyone would go batshit crazy over it.
However, she consented to the process which led to the fetus. The argument of pro-choicers seems to me to be less about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and more about wanting to have sex with no ramifications. If the fetus isn't a human being it's more convenient for their argument...
Not necessarily. She may have consented to sex, but not to having a baby. She might also not have consented to the sex.
To be fair, animals can't bitch about anything. For all we know, a chimpanzee would be just as interested in non-procreative sex as a human would; they just don't have the option.
Not that human behavior should necessarily have anything in common with the behavior of other critters.
Check out Bonobos. They do non-procreative sex all the time. Both between males and other males and females and females.
I'm pretty sure no baby has ever consented to being aborted.
*edit*
Do Bonobos have birth control? How do they do "non-procreative" exactly? I doubt they have monkey doctors to perform abortions. Of course, animal behavior isn't an argument in favor of humans acting the same way. Some parents eat their young in the wild, and vice versa.
Do Bonobos have birth control? How do they do "non-procreative" exactly? I doubt they have monkey doctors to perform abortions. Of course, animal behavior isn't an argument in favor of humans acting the same way. Some parents eat their young in the wild, and vice versa.
Nope. Female Bonobos will rub their genitals together, and from the sounds they make, they certainly sound like they are enjoying it! Male Bonobos do the same (rubbing genitals). I read "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl, which chronicles species that have what humans think of as "Gay Sex". Even Sheep do it. Farmers have apparently noted Rams (male sheep) who prefer other male sheep to Ewes.
Never let someone tell you that only humans are gay or do gay sex. This is simply not true. (And part of the reason I read the book is to give a "Take that!!" to religious people that insist Gay sex is only because of our "Fallen" status. I believe this is also part of why Bagemihl wrote the book.)
This story is INSANE regardless, but this officer's story simply does not hold up. Even if we take at face value that she thought she was entering her own apartment, thought this guy was an intruder, and shot him on sight, how does that account for the fact that her key would not have worked in his lock?? Or if this man's door was unlocked, wouldn't the officer have immediately known she hadn't left her door unlocked?? The female officer is going to be charged with manslaughter, but I wouldn't place any bets on a conviction if she gets a typical American jury. But what the holy hell, a cop entering the wrong apartment at her building and shooting another resident dead??
I know in NC at least, that in order for an in home shooting to be justified, the intruder has to be threatening you or another in the home in order to use lethal force, not just in it. Now you can shoot someone in the process of breaking in a window or door, but after their in it's that call to be made. But yeah, this is even weirder as it wasn't even her home. The Castle doctrine (allowed to stand your ground in home) is a little weird in that regard.
Trudeau’s government warned in July that it would retaliate against any auto tariffs. Canada has numerous U.S. allies on the issue: Trump’s proposal to use a “national security” law to impose tariffs on foreign cars has been opposed by every major segment of the U.S. auto industry, from domestic automarkers to dealership owners.
Trump tariffs on Canada would directly harm the “Detroit Three” U.S. automakers. General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler plants make up a major percentage of Canadian auto production.
This is one of the bluffs I am talking about. This type of tariff would not only be illegal, it’d hurt American car makers as much as Canada. Trump would be stupid to actually follow through on this threat, but I wouldn’t put it past him.
@LadyRhian You didn't answer my question. You claied Bonobos engage in "Non-procreative". How do they do so without any form of birth control?
Among other things, mutual masturbation. And male/male and female/female sex cannot result in babies. Thus, non-procreative.
Did you read the article?
'But bonobo sex also plays a deeper role: it cements social bonds. Junior bonobos may use sex to bond with more dominant group members, allowing them to climb the social ladder. Males that have had a fight sometimes perform genital-to-genital touching, known as "penis fencing", as a way of reducing tension. More rarely, they also kiss, perform fellatio and massage each other's genitals. Even the young comfort each other with hugs and sex.'
Yeah, that's a good justification for mass muder. Disgusting.
Did I say it was a justification? Anyhow, under the law, murder is of people. Abortions occur to fetuses. And I'm not saying that to be cute or trite. Animals are also considered not human and can be killed with impunity. If you consider abortion to be mass murder, what about the meat industry? That is also based on mass killing.
As for myself, I'd never get an abortion, but having a relative who was raised by abusive parents and was told pretty much every day of her life that if abortion had been legal before she was born, she would never have been born, I view it as less of an evil that being raised in such a horrid and twisted way by parents who do not want a child, or even that child.
Comments
Admittedly, Trump is really good at selling his name: Look at all those buildings that have his name on them. He's consistently branded himself as "The Best" and voters didn't know (or care) they were being sold a bill of goods.
All the time since he was elected has only served to convince me more than ever that he is incredibly unsuited for the office he was elected to, and it makes me feel angry and depressed. I try to stay away from discussing politics for this reason, but hey, it seems like America might soon be quit of him. I just hope that we don't get a President Pence in his stead, even as I see the upside that he's nowhere near as popular as Trump among Trump's base. I don't want to see America ruled by someone who allows his religion to limit the right of other people, especially when it comes to women and their bodies.
In any case, the America Trump leaves behind will be a very much poorer one (and not only literally, with deficits blooming over 117 Trillion dollars), but one where racists and bigots are emboldened, and by someone so crude, know-nothing and willing to pander to those who support him that he made America less safe in many arenas.
As I heard a southern friend say once, "Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good Lord split 'ya!"
The claimed justification was that it was only delaying the abortion until the government could locate a sponsor, but it had already been trying to find a sponsor for a month and a half and still had failed. If Kavanaugh's decision was not overruled, she would have been held in detainment while pregnant for weeks if not months, making the abortion (which the woman had already decided upon) increasingly dangerous.
Even if we didn't factor in the precedent set by Roe vs. Wade, trying to subvert a perfectly legal court order on a false justification doesn't sound like fitting behavior for a Supreme Court justice.
Luckily, his two fellow justices on the court with him dissented with his opinion, and let "Jane Doe" get the abortion she wanted.
- Pro-torture under Bush
- Rules for business over people 90% of the time.
- Perjured himself in 2006 concerning a Judge Pryor's nomination
- Probably definitely met with Trump's lawyers to discuss willingness to obstruct Mueller before nomination
- Tried to force a immigrant to not get an abortion
- Anti-abortion
- Personally encouraged (directed) Republican staffers to hack and use Democratic emails in circumventing the Senate to get judges confirmed under bush
- Wants to loosen(!) campaign finance laws and allow even more dark money
- Won't say if he supports the President pardoning himself (He supports the president pardoning himself)
- Won't say if Presidents can be subpoenaed (He's against it, thus why Trump picked him)
plenty more red red red flags.
AND:
There you have it. His lawyer has now signaled unequivocally that Trump is above the law. He can't even handle the f*****g take-home test version.
"Law and Order!"
It's nice to talk about ideas and policies, isn't it? Politics has bored me for awhile now with the constant theater and gossip.
One of Canada’s biggest infrastructure plans has hit a huge snag lately as a judge kicked the Trans Mountain pipeline back to consultation phase, as it was ruled the Liberals didn’t consult indigenous communities enough, and over looked environmental concerns.
This pipeline is to help the Canadian economy by opening up more markets than the US to Canadian Oil produced in Alberta. It is also Canadian owner as Ottawa bought the project from Kinder Morgan, so if it doesn’t get built, Canadian tax payers are out billions for the cancelled project.
There is a lot of finger pointing going on regarding the fumbling of the consultation phase and what it means to Canada’s economy now that it is slowing down, with or without a new NAFTA.
It’s up to the Liberals to turn this sinking ship around, but how they are handling both the pipeline (incompetently) and NAFTA (calling bluffs) doesn’t make it look like they are up to the task.
Moreover, I simply cannot justify telling someone that they HAVE to grow another person inside of them for 9 months of their life. I've dated women who have had an abortion. I have dated a woman I suspected had had an abortion. Fact is, 1/4 women in this country have had an abortion. Chances are very high that many women the readers of this forum know in their personal life have had an abortion and you simply aren't privy to that information. It's also worth noting that barring a couple of exceptions, this thread is a great big boy's club, and it's possible this entire conversation comes off as wholly patronizing from both sides when women visitors read these posts. I turn into a whiny baby when I get a headache or stub my toe. I can't imagine what I would do if I was told I had to incubate a human life inside of me for nine months and then squeeze it out of me (or have my stomach cut open in some cases).
Not that human behavior should necessarily have anything in common with the behavior of other critters.
This story is INSANE regardless, but this officer's story simply does not hold up. Even if we take at face value that she thought she was entering her own apartment, thought this guy was an intruder, and shot him on sight, how does that account for the fact that her key would not have worked in his lock?? Or if this man's door was unlocked, wouldn't the officer have immediately known she hadn't left her door unlocked?? The female officer is going to be charged with manslaughter, but I wouldn't place any bets on a conviction if she gets a typical American jury. But what the holy hell, a cop entering the wrong apartment at her building and shooting another resident dead??
Something tells me if mother actually ate her child everyone would go batshit crazy over it.
Check out Bonobos. They do non-procreative sex all the time. Both between males and other males and females and females.
*edit*
Do Bonobos have birth control? How do they do "non-procreative" exactly? I doubt they have monkey doctors to perform abortions. Of course, animal behavior isn't an argument in favor of humans acting the same way. Some parents eat their young in the wild, and vice versa.
Never let someone tell you that only humans are gay or do gay sex. This is simply not true. (And part of the reason I read the book is to give a "Take that!!" to religious people that insist Gay sex is only because of our "Fallen" status. I believe this is also part of why Bagemihl wrote the book.)
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
The Castle doctrine (allowed to stand your ground in home) is a little weird in that regard.
So, Trump is getting desperate.
Trudeau’s government warned in July that it would retaliate against any auto tariffs. Canada has numerous U.S. allies on the issue: Trump’s proposal to use a “national security” law to impose tariffs on foreign cars has been opposed by every major segment of the U.S. auto industry, from domestic automarkers to dealership owners.
Trump tariffs on Canada would directly harm the “Detroit Three” U.S. automakers. General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler plants make up a major percentage of Canadian auto production.
This is one of the bluffs I am talking about. This type of tariff would not only be illegal, it’d hurt American car makers as much as Canada. Trump would be stupid to actually follow through on this threat, but I wouldn’t put it past him.
"If they did, we wouldn't know. Maybe they did. "
Yeah, that's a good justification for mass muder. Disgusting.
Did you read the article?
'But bonobo sex also plays a deeper role: it cements social bonds. Junior bonobos may use sex to bond with more dominant group members, allowing them to climb the social ladder. Males that have had a fight sometimes perform genital-to-genital touching, known as "penis fencing", as a way of reducing tension. More rarely, they also kiss, perform fellatio and massage each other's genitals. Even the young comfort each other with hugs and sex.' Did I say it was a justification? Anyhow, under the law, murder is of people. Abortions occur to fetuses. And I'm not saying that to be cute or trite. Animals are also considered not human and can be killed with impunity. If you consider abortion to be mass murder, what about the meat industry? That is also based on mass killing.
As for myself, I'd never get an abortion, but having a relative who was raised by abusive parents and was told pretty much every day of her life that if abortion had been legal before she was born, she would never have been born, I view it as less of an evil that being raised in such a horrid and twisted way by parents who do not want a child, or even that child.
She is still screwed up to this day, btw.