The lessee must also sign the lease. Individuals who have not attained the age of majority are generally not eligible to enter into contracts without permission of a parent or guardian. Your analogy fails.
Bodies aren’t buildings. Your analogy fails. Women (and men) can say “stop” halfway through sex. If the partner won’t withdraw from their body, then they can use force to evict them. There’s no “contract” or “lease” for sex, or for pregnancy.
Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t think of that. Previous statement withdrawn.
Is there a contract between a clump of cells and a woman? No there is not. So, dumbass, how is it even remotely similar?
Darn. I was kind of hoping he’d try to swallow a water heater out of right-wing reality-denying spite.
You’re trying to have it both ways with the slightest lean towards funding PP.
PP benefits from roads and electricity and plumbing and a slew of other things that the government supports.
I am not sure what else you want. Your tax dollars DO NOT support abortions and have not since the late 70’s. If you want to say they get some benefit in a roundabout way then you need to point it out and you need to say how that should be stopped. I’m through guessing at what’s in your head about this. Making doctors pay something does not change how your taxes go to this. If you cannot or will not spell it out then you have to allow that you are not supporting abortions via your taxes.
If you agree PP is a force to lower the abortion rate you should be donating as much as you can to them since having fewer abortions in the world is important to you and PP are probably the best at reducing the number of abortions in the world.
Why would I do such a thing? Unlike you lefties, I ain’t stupid. Why do you assume that I am?
Disagreeing with your assumptions does not automatically mean I agree with the stupid strawman you make up for me. Get it through your heads, morons. What you imagine I believe is almost certainly wrong. I don’t live in your stupid ideas of where my thoughts are. I, at least, don’t assume you are as stupid as my fellow righties assume you are. Why do you make those stupid assumptions about me?
Oh, that’s right. It’s because you are all bloody stupid.
You think you are not stupid: one of the prime indicators of D-K at work.
Sez the Dunning-Kruger exemplar. Moron.
You are droolingly stupid. Don’t blame me for your inability to deal with reality.
How do you know you can’t swallow a water heater? Have you ever tried?
Pfffffft… quitter.
I hear they go down easier if you put them in a sock.
I have, twice.
Here it is a third time: the benefit to the abortion provider is the use of the Planned Parenthood facilities, like lights and a receptionist, at no cost to the abortion provider.
It should be stopped by assessing the abortion provider a pro rata share of those costs.
Can you explain what about this explanation is lacking? I have provided it three times, and you keep asking, but without specifying what my explanation is confusing or incomplete.
My tax dollars, by comparison, go to support your fucking church, just as indirectly. I object to that, because I am not seeing your church as a net-positive actor in the world. How should we resolve this impasse?
How is that?
Church structures and properties are exempt from property taxes. Everywhere in the US, AFAIK. In addition, they are “non-profit” organizations, but are not required to file disclosure form 990. In other words, we cannot know what a church’s revenue stream or assets may be – the cleric may voluntarily reveal financial information, but he is at liberty to keep secret whatever he wants. Religious leaders are supposed to be honest and trustworthy, but history has not shown this to be the case.
In other words, the part of the tax base that churches evade comes out of my pocket.
Same way we resolve all impasses in the public arena: elect representatives who pass laws implementing policy.
No.
And that is about it. Apes have a biological resemblance to human, so that argument is pretty weak.
OK, considering how busy I’ve been, it’s quite possible that I’ve ascribed someone elses posts to you. What is your argument?
Why is that? You seemed intent on the suggestion that I made an error. Can you explain what the error was, specifically?
Or was the error on your part?
I had two arguments. The first was a rebuttal of the claim that there exists a biological definition of what constitutes a human and that a zygote fails to qualify for that definition. Biologists define many things, to be sure, but what “human” is has not been the subject of any generally accepted definition by the biologist community.
More generally, my argument is that despite the obvious and dramatic physical differences between a zygote and a newborn baby, a zygote contains what I believe to be the essential qualities of humanity. I recognize that this is simply opinion and cannot be demonstrated objectively.
I am, I suppose, a wishy-washy Pro Life/Choice advocate: I believe that abortion should be available early in pregnancy and illegal late. I am open to discussion on where that line should be.
I disagree with Bricker on where the line should be drawn but I find his arguments more cogent than those who oppose. I am irritated by Pro Life proponents who just shout “murderer!” and Pro Choice proponents who insist that any opposition to abortion is misogynist.
Bricker’s suggestion for PP seems reasonable if one agrees that a compromise must be made. If one is not willing to compromise than of course it is unfeasible.
Oh, cool! I love the “Let’s pretend that 40% of women aren’t pro-life” game! It’s so much fun! My favorite part is where we all pretend not to know that women’s views are exactly identical to the men’s numbers!
OK, I’m up. Ahem. “If men thought the way women did, abortion law would be different! But they don’t!” Hahaha, good times. How’d I do?