Let's assume you're right - if it was, that's medical records data, which is already privileged information. If the law doesn't recognize pacemaker records as privileged, then the law needs to be updated to account for technological changes.
It doesn't stop being medical information because it's stored (or sent by) a medical device as opposed to being told to a doctor.
>These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group". Weird... I could have sworn the FBI and the NSA would know that... yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America. And it's odd how you are so happy to make that adjustment when trying to pretend that righting christian fundamentalist whites are not high-risk - but you aren't willing to make the same adjustment when calculating odds of being shot by cops. Rightwingers constantly claim white people are shot by cops more often - but ignore that, as a percentage of the population, black people get shot by cops far more than anybody else. Which is why we see a video of an unarmed man being killed by cops AT LEAST once EVERY MONTH.
>You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't. I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics. For child molestation I could go a step further and add that less than 1% of all molestation ever are done by strangers. They are done by people the family knows and trusts and over 90% are done by parents. Not to mention that the laws being passed against it are ludicrous on a dozen other levels. Suddenly you have mothers unable to take their infant sons to the bathroom ! So what... if dad isn't with us today, you are not allowed to pee because you can't quite manage by yourself yet ?
>That's not an isolated incident. Your proposed solution has the odd quality that 1) It doesn't actually prevent the issue you see and 2) It actually INCREASES those problems. Nobody was "offended" by the shirt, people complained that it creates an unwelcoming environment - a completely different thing. And your "solution" is to make the environment MORE unwelcoming... which can ONLY lead to MORE complaints. The complaints didn't come from his colleagues, it didn't even come from inside the same organisation - it came from the outside world. So unless you want to work for a company with no customers or business relationships - your approach does absolutely NOTHING to reduce that.
Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.
Would somebody please explain to me how torturing babies in airports make America safer ? Yes, depriving a breastfeeding child of it's mother (and thus of food) for hours - is torture.
I take it you're talking about the holocaust ? In which case... you're an idiot ? Those Jews WERE the immigrants. They were the victims of Christians who did not treat them as their religion demands. It all began with painting them in the public as terrorist and criminals and planning a mass deportation. Trump's immigration executive order last week included a demand that - every week - the DOJ must publish a list of crimes committed by immigrants. It doesn't specify if that should be convictions or just arrests (which would be mere allegation). One of the very first things Hitler did as president (before he was Fuhrer) was to start publishing a weekly newspaper with crimes allegedly committed by Jews.
How would an immigration ban have kept the immigrants safe ? Oh wait, it didn't - it was the first step to their attempted extermination. So committed were the NAZIs to the message that this was merely "deportation and emigration" that, at Nuremberg, long after the camps had been liberated and the bodies found - they still claimed, as their defence, that the entire holocaust was nothing more than a deportation and emigration program.
You are correct that, that history has lessons to learn most relevant to current events - you're just wrong about what the lessons are. The lesson to learn from that is that policies like these are a very evil idea.
>Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am You may know that, but nobody else does. So statistically I see a white male. That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism. If anybody should be getting banned from the USA to make it safer it's us. Of course, all those protests you are about to levy about why it would be crazy to try and ban white males -apply even MORE STRONGLY to say people from Syria.
> I've faced quite a few transsexuals, What the fuck do transexuals have to do with a discussion on transgender rights ? I'm not likely to take an argument seriously when steeped in such obvious ignorance of the subject matter. > were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid And I've known lots and lots of straight, cisgender white males like that. Trans people are not more likely to be any of those things. Considering the levels of abuse they face, I can't blame them for being prone to depression and cynicism though - but that's OUR fault.
> So, statistically - you're full of shit. You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.
>Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it. Well... since you seem to believe anecdotal evidence is "statistics" I get to say that this is exactly what happened to me - at a time, and in a place, where affirmative action was significantly more comprehensive than it is now. If I could do it and you couldn't - I can only assume that your "hard work" was unfortunately not backed up by the intellectual talents required for university access. Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ... plumbing perhaps. Plumbers make a LOT of money, it's a job that's unlikely to be automated away and since it's fairly easy to be your own boss you can EVEN compete with immigrants - hell you can come to employ them.
>A gaudy shirt gifted by a female friend for birthday. [knowyourmeme.com] Yeah, that shirt was gaudy and if it had been an isolated case it would be entirely overblown, but in that same period we had a famous biologist telling a conference he doesn't like having women in his labs because they fall in love with colleagues and when it ends they cry, and a whole host of other public scandals that reeks of a science world that seriously makes women feel unwelcome. Now I have sympathy for Taylor, I don't think he intended to offend anybody or be sexist, but on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience. Frankly giving apologies is something we should all be doing more often. I wasn't impressed when a bunch of republicans after Obama's middle-east tour complained that "I would never apologise for America". That's INSANE. Sometimes America fucks up, just like everybody else. When it does - It SHOULD be a country great enough to apologise. Saying "I'm sorry" is, frankly, the sign of being a mature and wise person - it is not, something, which you should deem an unthinkable evil !
>You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do. What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out.
>You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color. Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher.
>You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices. What the fuck was your fashion choices ? A KKK hoodie in swastika print !?!?!
So you're saying she's a weak candidate. What does THAT have to do with due process? Oh, right, nothing.
The likelihood of her actually winning is relatively immaterial to the issue being discussed.
That said, I wouldn't be so sure. If 2016 taught us anything it's that there are no more certainties in the world of politics, we've also seen democrats over the weekend finally getting the message their constituents have been sending: they demand absolute and unbending resistance and a solidly progressive stance. The message to the old center-right Clinton-coalition is - support a purely progressive agenda or you're out on your ass.
Don't underestimate the impact such a thing can have. in 2010 the Tea Party represented less than 10% of the population - they elected a mere 40 or so politicians, that's less than 10% of the votes in congress. Yet they gained influence far beyond their numbers - those 10% or so (now known as the "freedom caucus") had the power to shut down the government... twice. Every other republican, even the moderate ones had to go hard-right or risk being the next guy to lose his seat to a tea-party candidate. Now, the progressive wing of the democrats are taking the same tactics, and the thing is -they are not some small 10% fringe group. If the primaries proved one thing it's that they are at LEAST half of the democrat voters, and quite possibly a majority. For 2 decades the democrats paid lip service to them, but basically ignored them in policy - and they sucked it up because they bought the message being sold: that progressive agendas cannot be sold to the American electorate, that the only way to get ANYTHING progressive done is to elect center-right candidates who will do some small progressive steps ahead. The Obama years showed that system collapsing as a classic center-right democrat got painted as a radical liberal (despite never pursuing a single liberal policy) and obstructed at every corner. It showed a small 10% fringe on the far right gain almost complete veto-power over congress... and then the center-right candidate for president lost.
They are angry, and they don't believe in the old system anymore, they don't believe you can gain small progressive victories by voting for center-right candidates who can get republicans to compromise, they know it doesn't work anymore. So, the only way to fight uncompromising rightwingers is to provide an uncompromising left-wing, which happens to outnumber the other by at least 5 to 1. There are very, very interesting times ahead.
Don't just read the headline, read the article - with all those cited examples and proof. The same behaviour that was smiled at last saturday is "rioting" when black lives matter protesters (for example) did them.
>Except that definition is a slippery slope. There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.
>A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom? Absolutely. This only suddenly became an issue because it became a stick you could hit a vulnerable person with. Nobody is REALLY uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms. Everyone who complains about this has a unisex bathroom in their house !
>A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'? Nope. Being unhappy about losing a place does not make you a bigot. Trying to use the court system to force a university to alter their admissions policy to one that would let you in is an entirely different matter however.
>Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became. So... here's the problem with your idea. Overwhelmingly the targets of bigottry are minorities, and over many centuries the system was set up (by long-dead bigots) to favour the majority. 99% of the complaints are NOT about people, but about that system. Complaints about structural or systemic racism for example does not accuse anybody of doing something racist. Merely of benefiting passively from what your ancestors did in the name of racism. Nobody can be blamed for what their ancestors did that was unjust - but you sure as hell can be expected to help dismantle it.
>Oh, neither is okay. The problem is SJWs only see the former as wrong. Because the second is what is known as "self defence". You may want to look up the legal principle of "first aggressor".
>Also: being offended is not the same as being hurt. Being offended has never been a factor, it is a strawman of those who want their ability to harm to remain unimpeded to claim they are merely causing offence. But if you want to know how bad the bullying was, you don't ask the bully - you ask the victim, somewhere the bully can't know what he said.
Nobody asked you to. Just save the ones you already promised to save, in writing. You know, like refugees who have gone through the multi-year UN vetting process established by the refugee convention the USA were the primary authors off.
You would let millions die out fear that maybe 50 people could be in danger... at a milllion to one odds. Yes there is a terrorsit here causing a lot of death. You. You are capable of more heartless brutality than BinLadin ever dreamt off.
Oh right.... so you expect all the other countries to help them... but America need not do its share under the treaty it signed (and mostly fucking wrote).
For every terrorist in those countries there a millions of innocents. Trump is refusing them all. Remember this when he comes for you. And he will. His type comes for everybody in the end.
This is what you get for making Eric Cartman president.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." -Leviticus 19:33-34
Then you voted for Trump. A vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump. We all warned you for a year. You didnt listen. You helped cause this. Be a man. Own it. Take responsibility for this fuckup you helped cause. Otherwise you are part of what we need to resist against. Yes democrats did not try to fuck over the president - even when they despised him when he told them the CIA found wmds they believed him. Where was that 'country before party' from the republicans during Obama's presidency ?
No he removed funding from organisations that even talk about abortions. Every republican since reagan has - but its no less evil for that. It would be better if they just stripped aid altogether. That would kill less people than this does.
But that stupidity us what so many Americans are protesting. Seems rather a lot of your fellow Americans (correctly) think it is thwir problem, and you are a douche. By the way... America is a signatory of the UN refugee convention. That means no president, including Trump, has the right to stop accepting refugees - congress approved the treaty only congress can vote to end it. So... why are you supporting such a flagrant executive branch power grab ?
And liberals were critical pf that... but its amazing how all the conservative hawks turned dove when a black, democrat dropped the bombs... the same fucks who a decade ago said liberals were antiamerican, traitors, unpatriotic and pussies for not supporting iraq.
The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive. So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?
>but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother
Well that would be MORE progressive than the law BEFORE Trump took office. Current US law in this regard is the Helm's act which prohibits use of tax funding for abortions. Period. No exceptions allowed.
This applies both to foreign aid and domestic funding (for example for planned parenthood). They have to use OTHER funding sources if they want to offer abortion and limit the tax money to non-abortion services (of which they supply a multitude), and are subject to audits to prove their compliance with this.
So what the fuck exactly do you think Trump did ? Because what he SAID he did "prevent tax money from funding abortions" has nothing to DO with what he did and is an act of congress over which the white house has no say to begin with. Even if we elected Germaine Greer president she couldn't allow tax money to be used for abortions because it's prohibited by an act of congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's assume you're right - if it was, that's medical records data, which is already privileged information. If the law doesn't recognize pacemaker records as privileged, then the law needs to be updated to account for technological changes.
It doesn't stop being medical information because it's stored (or sent by) a medical device as opposed to being told to a doctor.
>These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group".
Weird... I could have sworn the FBI and the NSA would know that... yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America. And it's odd how you are so happy to make that adjustment when trying to pretend that righting christian fundamentalist whites are not high-risk - but you aren't willing to make the same adjustment when calculating odds of being shot by cops. Rightwingers constantly claim white people are shot by cops more often - but ignore that, as a percentage of the population, black people get shot by cops far more than anybody else. Which is why we see a video of an unarmed man being killed by cops AT LEAST once EVERY MONTH.
>You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't.
I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics. For child molestation I could go a step further and add that less than 1% of all molestation ever are done by strangers. They are done by people the family knows and trusts and over 90% are done by parents. Not to mention that the laws being passed against it are ludicrous on a dozen other levels.
Suddenly you have mothers unable to take their infant sons to the bathroom ! So what... if dad isn't with us today, you are not allowed to pee because you can't quite manage by yourself yet ?
>That's not an isolated incident. ... which can ONLY lead to MORE complaints.
Your proposed solution has the odd quality that
1) It doesn't actually prevent the issue you see and
2) It actually INCREASES those problems.
Nobody was "offended" by the shirt, people complained that it creates an unwelcoming environment - a completely different thing. And your "solution" is to make the environment MORE unwelcoming
The complaints didn't come from his colleagues, it didn't even come from inside the same organisation - it came from the outside world. So unless you want to work for a company with no customers or business relationships - your approach does absolutely NOTHING to reduce that.
Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.
http://www.scarymommy.com/immi...
Would somebody please explain to me how torturing babies in airports make America safer ? Yes, depriving a breastfeeding child of it's mother (and thus of food) for hours - is torture.
I take it you're talking about the holocaust ? In which case... you're an idiot ? Those Jews WERE the immigrants. They were the victims of Christians who did not treat them as their religion demands. It all began with painting them in the public as terrorist and criminals and planning a mass deportation. Trump's immigration executive order last week included a demand that - every week - the DOJ must publish a list of crimes committed by immigrants. It doesn't specify if that should be convictions or just arrests (which would be mere allegation). One of the very first things Hitler did as president (before he was Fuhrer) was to start publishing a weekly newspaper with crimes allegedly committed by Jews.
How would an immigration ban have kept the immigrants safe ? Oh wait, it didn't - it was the first step to their attempted extermination. So committed were the NAZIs to the message that this was merely "deportation and emigration" that, at Nuremberg, long after the camps had been liberated and the bodies found - they still claimed, as their defence, that the entire holocaust was nothing more than a deportation and emigration program.
You are correct that, that history has lessons to learn most relevant to current events - you're just wrong about what the lessons are. The lesson to learn from that is that policies like these are a very evil idea.
>Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am
You may know that, but nobody else does. So statistically I see a white male. That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism. If anybody should be getting banned from the USA to make it safer it's us. Of course, all those protests you are about to levy about why it would be crazy to try and ban white males -apply even MORE STRONGLY to say people from Syria.
> I've faced quite a few transsexuals,
What the fuck do transexuals have to do with a discussion on transgender rights ? I'm not likely to take an argument seriously when steeped in such obvious ignorance of the subject matter.
> were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid
And I've known lots and lots of straight, cisgender white males like that. Trans people are not more likely to be any of those things. Considering the levels of abuse they face, I can't blame them for being prone to depression and cynicism though - but that's OUR fault.
> So, statistically - you're full of shit.
You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.
>Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it.
Well... since you seem to believe anecdotal evidence is "statistics" I get to say that this is exactly what happened to me - at a time, and in a place, where affirmative action was significantly more comprehensive than it is now. If I could do it and you couldn't - I can only assume that your "hard work" was unfortunately not backed up by the intellectual talents required for university access. Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ... plumbing perhaps. Plumbers make a LOT of money, it's a job that's unlikely to be automated away and since it's fairly easy to be your own boss you can EVEN compete with immigrants - hell you can come to employ them.
>A gaudy shirt gifted by a female friend for birthday. [knowyourmeme.com]
Yeah, that shirt was gaudy and if it had been an isolated case it would be entirely overblown, but in that same period we had a famous biologist telling a conference he doesn't like having women in his labs because they fall in love with colleagues and when it ends they cry, and a whole host of other public scandals that reeks of a science world that seriously makes women feel unwelcome. Now I have sympathy for Taylor, I don't think he intended to offend anybody or be sexist, but on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience. Frankly giving apologies is something we should all be doing more often. I wasn't impressed when a bunch of republicans after Obama's middle-east tour complained that "I would never apologise for America". That's INSANE. Sometimes America fucks up, just like everybody else. When it does - It SHOULD be a country great enough to apologise. Saying "I'm sorry" is, frankly, the sign of being a mature and wise person - it is not, something, which you should deem an unthinkable evil !
>You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do.
What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out.
>You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color.
Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher.
>You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices.
What the fuck was your fashion choices ? A KKK hoodie in swastika print !?!?!
So you're saying she's a weak candidate. What does THAT have to do with due process? Oh, right, nothing.
The likelihood of her actually winning is relatively immaterial to the issue being discussed.
That said, I wouldn't be so sure. If 2016 taught us anything it's that there are no more certainties in the world of politics, we've also seen democrats over the weekend finally getting the message their constituents have been sending: they demand absolute and unbending resistance and a solidly progressive stance. The message to the old center-right Clinton-coalition is - support a purely progressive agenda or you're out on your ass.
Don't underestimate the impact such a thing can have. in 2010 the Tea Party represented less than 10% of the population - they elected a mere 40 or so politicians, that's less than 10% of the votes in congress. Yet they gained influence far beyond their numbers - those 10% or so (now known as the "freedom caucus") had the power to shut down the government... twice. Every other republican, even the moderate ones had to go hard-right or risk being the next guy to lose his seat to a tea-party candidate.
Now, the progressive wing of the democrats are taking the same tactics, and the thing is -they are not some small 10% fringe group. If the primaries proved one thing it's that they are at LEAST half of the democrat voters, and quite possibly a majority. For 2 decades the democrats paid lip service to them, but basically ignored them in policy - and they sucked it up because they bought the message being sold: that progressive agendas cannot be sold to the American electorate, that the only way to get ANYTHING progressive done is to elect center-right candidates who will do some small progressive steps ahead. The Obama years showed that system collapsing as a classic center-right democrat got painted as a radical liberal (despite never pursuing a single liberal policy) and obstructed at every corner. It showed a small 10% fringe on the far right gain almost complete veto-power over congress... and then the center-right candidate for president lost.
They are angry, and they don't believe in the old system anymore, they don't believe you can gain small progressive victories by voting for center-right candidates who can get republicans to compromise, they know it doesn't work anymore. So, the only way to fight uncompromising rightwingers is to provide an uncompromising left-wing, which happens to outnumber the other by at least 5 to 1.
There are very, very interesting times ahead.
I pretty much just became the first person in history to use it about somebody where it DID actually apply.
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
Don't just read the headline, read the article - with all those cited examples and proof. The same behaviour that was smiled at last saturday is "rioting" when black lives matter protesters (for example) did them.
>Except that definition is a slippery slope.
There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.
>A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom?
Absolutely. This only suddenly became an issue because it became a stick you could hit a vulnerable person with. Nobody is REALLY uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms. Everyone who complains about this has a unisex bathroom in their house !
>A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'?
Nope. Being unhappy about losing a place does not make you a bigot. Trying to use the court system to force a university to alter their admissions policy to one that would let you in is an entirely different matter however.
>Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became.
So... here's the problem with your idea. Overwhelmingly the targets of bigottry are minorities, and over many centuries the system was set up (by long-dead bigots) to favour the majority. 99% of the complaints are NOT about people, but about that system. Complaints about structural or systemic racism for example does not accuse anybody of doing something racist. Merely of benefiting passively from what your ancestors did in the name of racism. Nobody can be blamed for what their ancestors did that was unjust - but you sure as hell can be expected to help dismantle it.
>Oh, neither is okay. The problem is SJWs only see the former as wrong.
Because the second is what is known as "self defence". You may want to look up the legal principle of "first aggressor".
>Also: being offended is not the same as being hurt.
Being offended has never been a factor, it is a strawman of those who want their ability to harm to remain unimpeded to claim they are merely causing offence. But if you want to know how bad the bullying was, you don't ask the bully - you ask the victim, somewhere the bully can't know what he said.
Nobody asked you to. Just save the ones you already promised to save, in writing. You know, like refugees who have gone through the multi-year UN vetting process established by the refugee convention the USA were the primary authors off.
You would let millions die out fear that maybe 50 people could be in danger... at a milllion to one odds. Yes there is a terrorsit here causing a lot of death. You. You are capable of more heartless brutality than BinLadin ever dreamt off.
Oh right .... so you expect all the other countries to help them... but America need not do its share under the treaty it signed (and mostly fucking wrote).
For every terrorist in those countries there a millions of innocents. Trump is refusing them all.
Remember this when he comes for you. And he will. His type comes for everybody in the end.
This is what you get for making Eric Cartman president.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." -Leviticus 19:33-34
This idea is, in fact, at least 5500 years old.
Then you voted for Trump. A vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump. We all warned you for a year. You didnt listen. You helped cause this. Be a man. Own it. Take responsibility for this fuckup you helped cause. Otherwise you are part of what we need to resist against.
Yes democrats did not try to fuck over the president - even when they despised him when he told them the CIA found wmds they believed him. Where was that 'country before party' from the republicans during Obama's presidency ?
https://www.google.com/url?q=h...
No he removed funding from organisations that even talk about abortions. Every republican since reagan has - but its no less evil for that. It would be better if they just stripped aid altogether. That would kill less people than this does.
But that stupidity us what so many Americans are protesting. Seems rather a lot of your fellow Americans (correctly) think it is thwir problem, and you are a douche.
By the way... America is a signatory of the UN refugee convention. That means no president, including Trump, has the right to stop accepting refugees - congress approved the treaty only congress can vote to end it.
So... why are you supporting such a flagrant executive branch power grab ?
There is no such thing as "their" and "our".
And liberals were critical pf that... but its amazing how all the conservative hawks turned dove when a black, democrat dropped the bombs... the same fucks who a decade ago said liberals were antiamerican, traitors, unpatriotic and pussies for not supporting iraq.
You misunderstood me. My post is about why abortion must be kept legal.
One reduces the degree with which races mix, and the other increases it.
They are literally the exact OPPOSITE of each other.
>I'm not sure there's a good metaphor
The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive.
So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?
>but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother
Well that would be MORE progressive than the law BEFORE Trump took office. Current US law in this regard is the Helm's act which prohibits use of tax funding for abortions. Period. No exceptions allowed.
This applies both to foreign aid and domestic funding (for example for planned parenthood). They have to use OTHER funding sources if they want to offer abortion and limit the tax money to non-abortion services (of which they supply a multitude), and are subject to audits to prove their compliance with this.
So what the fuck exactly do you think Trump did ? Because what he SAID he did "prevent tax money from funding abortions" has nothing to DO with what he did and is an act of congress over which the white house has no say to begin with. Even if we elected Germaine Greer president she couldn't allow tax money to be used for abortions because it's prohibited by an act of congress.