"Peanut butter and jelly is one day going to rule over all mankind" is a pretty simple concept, but if I said that you still might call for an explanation, since, ya know, it makes no sense.
Yea, but the thing is, I can sit down and read the sentence "Taxation is theft" and immediately understand the whole of that person's point about taxation.
Because taxation is theft.
Men in uniforms threaten your security with guns when you don't pay taxes, or elsewise men in suits threaten your finances with lawsuits when you don't pay taxes.
Bottom line: How does taxation differ from theft when both of those kinds of ways to acquire money come under the threat of violent force?
And polls... I don't look at polls. Why? They don't mean squat. Thats the simple truth. I can get a sample that says that 90% of people hate milk. It's not a good way to ascertain anything.
Yes, the entirety of the mathematics that go into polls can prove that ninety percent of people hate milk.
You don't know anything about statistics or pollsters, do you?
False dilemma, as it could be argued that it is not a person and makes a transition into personhood. But then you'd have to clarify when and why this transition occurs, which seems very inconvenient to the pro-abortion side.
The transition from living being to not living being is made when or if the mother decides to have an abortion.
This is what allows prosecutors to charge a person for two counts of manslaughter, or murder, on a person who kills a pregnant woman.
That was my point earlier, the one that you said makes no sense.
This shows that South Carolina is the only state in the United States that treats the fetus as a person. So, if you lived in South Carolina, I could agree with you. Also, abortion in the United States is only legal up to th 12 week.
That case was decided in 1996.
And that doesn't mean that ADAs haven't prosecuted pregnant mothers for negligent action in the past though, in any state. Prosecutorial discretion makes it difficult to track how cases and charges go; since it's left in the hands of the prosecutors to decide.
Based on abortion being legal? If a fetus had legal personhood it would have legal rights and thus killing it would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
Nope. Here in the US, it is legal to smoke while pregnant.
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
This issue fundamentally comes down to whether or not a fetus is alive. If it is not, then who cares if it is aborted? (NARAL has publicly stated that a fetus is no more of a person than an appendix.)
But if the fetus is alive, then every abortion is killing a human being. Does a person somehow become less human because of the actions of a parent?
That isn't what this is about at all.
I think you've completely missed the point at hand.
Actual story: when I worked at a gas station, I refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman because while I could not stop her from harming her child, I would not be a participant in the process.
You could have sold them to her and called the cops.
where he will be making well under 100 grand for the next 4 years, while paying malpractise - only afterwards will he be making money.
??
If you have to phrase it such that "he will be making well under 100 grand," instead of ninety grand or eighty grand, than I am not concerned. Anywhere even in the vicinity of one hundred thousand dollars a year is fantastic pay.
Reagan sped up the end of the Soviet Union by putting them in a situation where they would have to start backing down or building up their military. They chose to build up, which ultimately bankrupted them.
The bankrupting of the USSR was more as a result of American pressure on Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil, driving it's price down, then with American pressure on the Soviet Union to build up their military.
Soviet Oil made the Soviet Union a lot of money, and when the Saudis drove the price of oil down to new lows, it really crippled the Reds.
Doctors have long refused to assist governments in the administration of the death penalty on ethical grounds. Indeed, doctors do not euthanize on account of their moral beliefs (or at least the ethics guidelines of the AMA). Why should this ethical code be respected, but doctors who are also Catholics be told that their morals are arbitrary and unimportant?
Well, there's a few different answers, but you gave yourself one in your own statement.
Doctors refusing to administer the death penalty are doing so under the auspices of the American Medical Association.
Doctors refusing to abort fetuses are doing so under the auspices of Catholic dogma.
Tell me, which has more to do with medicine, Catholic Dogma or the AMA?
Yea, but the thing is, I can sit down and read the sentence "Taxation is theft" and immediately understand the whole of that person's point about taxation.
Because taxation is theft.
Men in uniforms threaten your security with guns when you don't pay taxes, or elsewise men in suits threaten your finances with lawsuits when you don't pay taxes.
Bottom line: How does taxation differ from theft when both of those kinds of ways to acquire money come under the threat of violent force?
Which part, the "taxation is theft" part, or the part where "theft is wrong."
I mean, they're both pretty simple concepts, but . . .
Any effect punishment has as a deterrent is secondary to that purpose.
They started this trend, and don't know when or how to stop it.
Yes, the entirety of the mathematics that go into polls can prove that ninety percent of people hate milk.
You don't know anything about statistics or pollsters, do you?
The transition from living being to not living being is made when or if the mother decides to have an abortion.
This is what allows prosecutors to charge a person for two counts of manslaughter, or murder, on a person who kills a pregnant woman.
That was my point earlier, the one that you said makes no sense.
That case was decided in 1996.
And that doesn't mean that ADAs haven't prosecuted pregnant mothers for negligent action in the past though, in any state. Prosecutorial discretion makes it difficult to track how cases and charges go; since it's left in the hands of the prosecutors to decide.
??
Did you not read what I said?
Based on what?
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
That isn't what this is about at all.
I think you've completely missed the point at hand.
You could have sold them to her and called the cops.
??
If you have to phrase it such that "he will be making well under 100 grand," instead of ninety grand or eighty grand, than I am not concerned. Anywhere even in the vicinity of one hundred thousand dollars a year is fantastic pay.
So what does that say about him?
The bankrupting of the USSR was more as a result of American pressure on Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil, driving it's price down, then with American pressure on the Soviet Union to build up their military.
Soviet Oil made the Soviet Union a lot of money, and when the Saudis drove the price of oil down to new lows, it really crippled the Reds.
Well, there's a few different answers, but you gave yourself one in your own statement.
Doctors refusing to administer the death penalty are doing so under the auspices of the American Medical Association.
Doctors refusing to abort fetuses are doing so under the auspices of Catholic dogma.
Tell me, which has more to do with medicine, Catholic Dogma or the AMA?