“We have to be truthful, not neutral,” she urged. “I would make sure that you don’t just give a platform … to those who want to crash down the constitution and democracy.”
The importance of this cannot be overstated. Here’s hoping the press rises to the challenge of responsible journalism.
Well to be fair, it was written by a 13 year old. That includes some things about growing up, so a whole mess of unfiltered thoughts, puberty, masturbation, etc. Some of which was censored by her father (to be fair I doubt she would have wanted all of that stuff actually published).
I don’t know whether or not she would have wanted this stuff to be published nor what her father did, but that’s not the issue here. What Texas is doing here is deeply anti-democratic and authoritarian. That reminds us on China’s or Russia’s dictatorship.
can people with prosthetics feel stuff? are we at that point technologically? if so, how precisely? with my fleshy fingers I can tell the difference between glass and less smooth surfaces, or even a hair ir some dust, but I doubt prosthetics would be at such s point
You mean like how individuals are supposedly forced to raise their grandchildren for 18+ years?
In the US you aren’t even forced to raise your own children, you can surrender them to the state if you really can’t take care of them.
Yeah, the dishonesty is depressing. Let’s just ignore that they are implying that a parent should be able to decide if their children reproduce, wouldn’t want people to become grandparents against their wishes!
Yes, the only two options. You realise we are talking about grandparents? Grandparents have no innate legal guardianship over there grandchildren, it’s simply a social norm that they take care of them (often eagerly).
The second option isn’t even required of biological parents who are innate legal guardians let alone grandparents. I already said this once so the fact that you willfully ignored it is telling.
Also 18 years isn’t life, leave it to pro-abortion people to lie about the severity of everything simply to justify a personal convenience.
Nothing said here is true, and it’s so ironic that the Guardian makes a sob piece about this when what they did is illegal in most countries. (Including the UK where the Guardian is based).
The side of reality? Even if you support an outcome, you are under zero obligation to support everything that leads to that outcome either directly or incidentally.
It may be a fact that the Earth is somewhat spherical, but someone that comes to this conclusion using astronomical data is not equivalent to someone to determines that the Earth is a sphere because oranges are also spheres.
Even if you support the pro-choice position it’s easy to see that many claims and assumptions made are simply false. This is true for essentially every commonly held belief, the vast majority of people couldn’t even develop the scientific method independently.
I’m actually not being purposely vague, you can tell pretty easily. The fact is that it doesn’t matter, so long as the actual criticism is valid.
“Should the person go to jail”- legally, of course.
Practically, probably not. Even though it was a clearly premeditated action, people are simply more sympathetic to certain types of people. This is why people will save their friends before strangers, it is not a question of morality that determines if your friends are more valuable, it’s purely psychology. Likewise people are more concerned about the person they see complaining about a minor inconvenience than the death toll of a famine. People will always fall for a victimisation narrative (everyone on this post is doing just that) so long as the “victim” is more appealing to them. Adult humans are just simply more appealing than fetuses, so incidents like these serve to whip up a frenzy despite the fact that virtually everyone agrees with the moral arguments against late-term abortion. (The majority of people openly oppose it, and those that don’t probably agree with a formal description of the argument, and just want to white knight).
“For or against a woman’s ability to have an abortion”
Nobody has any right to take conscious action to deprive others of future conscious experience, so long as it does not deprive themselves of future conscious experience. This is a fairly succinct claim that addresses the permissibility of killing the temporarily comatose, the suicidal, and individuals with ambiguous self-worth. (None of it is permissible, and consequently neither is abortion of a healthy fetus).
I adore that you either didnt read or didn’t comprehend the first paragraph of the article and then twist it to fit into your delusions. Its really cute. No critical thinking skills, just vibes. What a life. Honestly enviable.
At their best republicans are pretty crappy but its super villian in a lair stuff like this which makes it impossible for me to understand how anyone can vote for this party.
theguardian.com
Hot