zapatos

Completely agree. No question at all. I am just saying you are not required to get involved in Part B (improved access to contraception, etc.) if you choose to get involved in Part A (anti-abortion). If you think life begins at conception, then being active in stopping abortion and through your actions allowing, say, 100 additional babies to be born, is a great accomplishment and something to be proud of. It is not as if there are not other people who are active in improved access to contraception, ease of adoption, maternity leave and all the others. I know someone who runs a dental charity for adults. Pragmatically this person is going to have better outcomes if they get behind providing dental care for kids. But you can only take on so many responsibilities in life. Are you going to criticize them for their charitable work because it did not go far enough? Yeah, that seems like a major flaw in their reasoning. But of course many versions of "making abortion rare" are anathema just like abortion. Ouch. That's rather harsh. And rather hypocritical. By choosing to bike rather than drive you are just choosing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying "anything on my side is virtuous and anything on your side is not." Surely not manufacturing a bike and walking instead is better for the environment. Surely only eating fruit that fell from the trees is better for the environment than eating anything that has to be transported to the grocery store. In fact, unless you are going to remove yourself from the earth to remove your impact 100%, you are only taking the partial steps that YOU have decided are 'virtuous'. And how is that working out for you? Have you solved the environment crisis yet? Okay, I'm done here. I don't need this crap.

So the end justifies the means? Too many downsides for me. More of "the end justifies the means". Should a person opposed to the death penalty change their position if they find the death penalty deters homicides? Totally disagree. No one is required to go all in. I can be 'pro-environment' without giving away my car. Where does it all end? If I am pro-life must I also adopt, foster, share all my food, etc.? We are all free to choose which causes we wish to fight for. Causes don't come as part of an all-inclusive package. That's is fine. It works for me. Both are stances say 'do the right thing even if the consequences are bad'. The key is "wanting to", as opposed to "have to". There are only so many tasks we can take on in this world. While I might have time to attend protests against the death penalty, that doesn't mean I also have time to fight for prison reform. People fight for animal rights. That doesn't mean they are against human rights or any other good causes. It just means they picked something and took action on it. All of us do that. No one can take on every related cause to the one cause that prompts us into action.

If one believes the fetus is a human life, there is nothing contradictory is fighting to stop abortion but not fighting for what happens to the child after birth. I am opposed to the death penalty, but don't feel I must at the same time fight to improve the conditions in prison. If I am against abortion, I am not going to change my stance just because it will drive women to alternative abortion solutions. IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options. Similarly, I would not have opposed impeaching Trump as some did, simply because it could have riled up his supporters and put the Democrat's chance at the Presidency at risk. Doing the right thing is often important regardless of the consequences.

Are abusers sick and in need of therapy? Maybe they are but the ones I've seen are bullies or abuse when drinking. Perhaps they are sick, but that is not how they looked to my untrained eye.

Yeah, I don't think that is going to happen.

I guess it depends on how you define "pro-choice" and "pro-life". If they simply refer to whether or not abortion should outlawed 100% of the time, then 'no', I don't think they can be compatible. On the other hand, a person can be pro-life and also support the right of others to choose.

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous." -Yogi Berra

You are the one making the claim. You figure out the accurate terminology to describe how the sport is organized.

That may be true but that is not necessarily how we saw it portrayed in the US. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60190452 https://theconversation.com/how-canadas-freedom-convoy-was-overtaken-by-a-radical-fringe-176111 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/world/canada/trudeau-truckers-anti-vax-protests.html I also just recently heard a story on NPR talking about Canada's gun problem. I didn't know they had one but was not surprised that a large part of it had to do with the smuggling of handguns from the US. Here is a related article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-canada-has-a-real-gun-violence-problem-but-its-mostly-not-the-one-the/

What I meant is that they are not segregated if they play together. "Segregate: set apart from the rest or from each other; isolate or divide." 'Mixed' is the opposite of 'segregated'. When blacks were segregated from whites in post-Civil War America, that did not mean you had water fountains for whites, water fountains for blacks, and water fountains that would be used by both blacks and whites.

They are not interested in this thread. They spend day and night visiting every nook and cranny of the web, building their index so that when someone Googles (or any other browser) "come from nothing", Google can show them the 200 million places that appears on the web.

Today I learned that mole day is celebrated each year beginning at 6:02 am on October 23rd. Life keeps me smiling! 😄

More likely it has been viewed by a great number of web crawlers.

Arguably the worst video on Youtube with over 161,000,000 views. Perhaps "views" is not a good measure of the kind of history you wish to make.

I think you are mistaken about this claim. These are exactly the types of problems the Democrats are trying to address through legislation. Again, this is simply not true as has been pointed out time and again over the last 16 pages.

It's happened before. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

To be fair, they are also the weapons of choice for the brave and stable.

Correct. Don't pretend you don't know the definition of "domestic". WTF is wrong with you?!?! Who, anywhere in this thread, made any such implication? I don't have an issue. You do. Clearly for some reason you've decided to troll everyone here. Since this thread has not been argued in good faith I'm hopeful the moderators will see fit to close it. I'm sure if someone wants to discuss domestic abuse they will open another thread. This one has moved beyond anything useful.

That's never been an issue. The issue had to do with your initial claim about domestic abuse.

I'm okay with calling it abuse. But this is a video of how he felt when he heard what Heard said about him in the article. That was well after the marriage.

Would you mind telling the time on the video he begins talking about how she abused him in the marriage?

I know. Hence my request for you to expand on it. Unfortunately rather than address why it is plausible as I asked, you continue with Red Herrings... And tap dancing... I'll get off the carousel now.

But that was irrelevant to my dialogue with Peterkin, which was not about the truth of who did what to whom, but about relevant evidence at trial. I found Peterkin's statement that he "wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways", in a trial regarding the veracity of the claim that one litigant was victimized by the other, to be implausible. I was simply seeking a further clarification of his statement; either an argument supporting the supposition, or an acknowledgement that upon further consideration the supposition may not be correct after all. Unfortunately I received neither.

You've fallen so far koti. I hope you'll rejoin us at some point.