But you just said “infinity weeks”? If it were legal up at any stage you can bet your arse it would happen at 39 weeks at least once, 40 too. So again - would you be ok with people having abortions at 40 weeks? Don’t deflect, answer the question. I want us all to see you confirm that you’re ok with aborting a full term baby.
Notice how I specifically said “and her doctor”? That wasn’t for funsies. At or near term, doctors will induce birth or perform a c-section, not an abortion.
It’s a medical procedure and as such hypotheticals WAY outside of standard practice to the point that the doctor would lose their licence in any modern country are as irrelevant as arguing about whether it should be allowed for doctors to remove a healthy spleen just because they’re bored.
I didn’t mean less than 30 or so weeks, I meant infinity weeks within common medical practice. Which number of weeks you want to apply as an absolute isn’t the important part, the medical expertise is.
You seem to have the reading comprehension and knowledge about female reproductive medicine of either an elementary school boy or an average Republican congressman, whichever is slightly worse than the other.
I meant infinity weeks within common medical practice.
So by “infinity” you meant “less than 30”. Infinity is literally the worst, most incorrect word that you could have used in this situation. You criticising my reading comprehension is a hoot based on your poor choice of words that mean one thing but you’re using them to mean something else. Even an elementary school kid knows not to use infinity when they mean “less than 30”. You seem to have the same amount of communication skills as an average Democratic congressman.
Nope. They meant there should be no absolute one-size-fits-all number of weeks. There should be no weeks because it is a medical decision between the patient and doctor. They will not provide a number of weeks because the number of weeks is no one’s business but the patient and doctor.
Let's be perfectly clear: The US was destroying large Japanese cities and their occupants at the same scale as Hiroshima and Nagasaki for some time, just with less efficiency, and much of the Japanese populace was prepared to fight to the death with shovels and sticks.
I'm not saying that the atomic bombs were a good thing; I'm just pointing out that they weren't particularly worse than what the US was already doing, and prepared to continue doing. And that in the moment, a display of such offensive power could be argued to be a quicker way to end the war, and prevent having to do a ground invasion of the home islands. With today's hindsight, we can definitely see clearly the other local and global repercussions of nuclear weapons, which makes the US having used them carry many different connotations.
But that's likely not even the whole reason nuclear bombs were used in 1945. The USSR were only grudingly allied with the US, because they needed help early on in the European theater. Well before the bombs were dropped, the Soviets had ramped up their military strength and were running roughshod over eastern Europe. Germany had already surrendered, and USSR looked towards the east, taking over Manchuria and Korea, with the Korean peninsula split at the 38th parallel at Potsdam, before the Korean War.
The US wanted to use the bomb as a deterrent to the Soviets, and using atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 accomplished that goal, as well as reducing the expense and risk to US military forces already at war, without increasing the effects on the ground very much. Japan's surrender had plenty to do with making the decision on who to surrender to, with the preference being the US and not the USSR. But Japan did not want to surrender unconditionally, they wanted to ensure that the Imperial government could do so while saving face, and probably while not also being imprisoned or killed. It's likely that Japan would have surrendered with or without any atomic bombs, certainly without the second one.
But the US needed to demonstrate to the world, particularly to Stalin, that they could build as many atomic bombs as they wanted, and that came from dropping a second one in quick succession after the first.
The sheriff said the homeowners then disarmed the suspect, who was later identified as 62-year-old James F. Garrett of Seneca, and held him until deputies arrived.
I don't normally expect to hear about burglars in their 60s.
Someone should just start putting out fake Trump articles with super-weird headlines and no-one would notice - anything is plausible with this guy.
'Trump stole Israeli artifacts from White House'
‘Trump admits that he expects servicemen to be rapists’
'Trump kicked a child in the face while campaigning in Iowa.'
‘Donald Trump just literally made the Republican race about his penis’
'Donald Trump likes rough sex with prostitutes who only have one leg.'
'Trump visited church before election day and walked out with a wooden pew under his arm and a gold alter crucifix concealed in his jacket.'
'Trump was spotted Thursday cartwheeling down Santa Monica beach in a mankini.'
'Trump just called Hillary Clinton Beelzubub, the eater of souls.'
'Donald Trump stole classified documents, stored them in his bathroom in Mar-a-Lago, then sent copies via bike courier to the Russian and Saudi embassies for a cash exchange of $2 million per page.'
'Donald Trump seen naked at 3am in Central Park humping a chihuahua.'
Challenge: 50% of these headlines are real, can you spot which ones?
Close, but still good enough for second prize. Good effort.
You win a life-sized cardboard cutout of Donald Trump with touch activated audio loops of all his most memorable Presidential quotes, such as: “And yet I’ve gone decades, decades without a war. The first president to do it for that long a period.”, and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.” and “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”. Look for it in the mail.
Winner! Well done. You win a Trump Prize Pack containing a signed MAGA hat, a pack of Trump NFT cards, a genuine Trump tupee with pre-combed slick back and sides, a framed copy of his love letter to Kim Jong Un the North Korean dictator, and a McDonalds voucher for a years supply of cheese burgers. Look for it in the mail.
Maybe someone could take over that weird network of fake local news sites that exist to push right-wing agitative propaganda and instead push fake trump headlines
For real. One of the most disappointing experiences of my life was the first time I tried In N Out. I took a couple bites, sat back, and just thought, “That’s it? That’s what everyone thinks is a great burger? What the fuck is wrong with everyone?”
Implying that a house where the owners don’t own guns would have been the right one?
The reason burglars take guns in the US is because there’s a good chance they’ll run into owners with guns as well. So lots of people owning guns doesn’t prevent burglary, it just forces criminals to take guns as well.
Should people kindly ask the home invader to please vacate the area after their door gets smashed in? Maybe just hug it out?
I don't know about you but I lock my doors. I don't know what the fuck a stranger is trying to do in my house. They will be met with force if they forced their way in to violate my personal space and safety. Being unarmed or complying won't keep anyone but criminals safe.
That’s the argument me and the person I replied under are making. Adding more guns just increases the chance someone gets shot. If we gave everyone in the world a fully automatic ak47 that wouldn’t stop people from being desperate or just plain evil. Crimes would still happen and I bet that burglary would have ended with more than one person shot. Probably more than one person dead.
Yeah I don’t think we should just lie down and let everything get stolen from us but why do people fight so hard for more violence? I’d much rather be arguing over how to improve police response times. Providing affordable security systems. Making internal doors and walls more secure. Social programs so people don’t get to the point they need to rob people to get by.
This article is infuriating because fox news says we should all clap for this lucky family that got to almost got to watch one another bleed out. Guns should be a last resort and when a news source talks about them it should regret the fact that death had to be put on the table.
It's not about thief or stuff. If someone breaks in I don't know why they're there. I have no reason to assume they are only there for stuff or won't hurt people who get in their way. Giving them the benefit of the doubt make no sense when they're already breaking in and violating your home. As an example I wouldn't go out to stop someone from breaking into my car or open the door during some incident. But if the door get kicked in a person shouldn't expect a warm welcome.
I do not care if a criminal gets hurt during the course of crimes that violate people's homes and personal safety. Anyone has a right to stop such people with force. Self-defense isn't a crime and I really don't consider it a problem. The gun was not the first resort. There were presumably doors and locks. Maybe some yelling. The criminal choose to victimize someone and found out that goes poorly on occasion.
If you want to prevent violence prevent people from being in desperate situations and commiting crimes against people. Don't expect people to be accepting of home invasion.
I think California is moving this way. They started producing their own insulin and suddenly everyone is reducing the price of their insulin to $30 a dose or whatever CA was charging. Let's do it with more
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.