Gesh

Let's explore the 1% risk of death situation.

A woman goes to her doctor and learns that her pregnancy may kill her with a 1% risk. She's uncomfortable taking that risk and wants to get an abortion. In this hyothetical, both the woman and the doctor believe her life is in enough jeopardy to be covered under the life of the mother exemption.

But you want that abortion to be illegal. So it's clear that you do not believe that the doctor and woman decide when her life is in enough peril to be allowed a legal abortion.

So back to my original question: Who decides when the woman's life is in enough jeopardy? Do you want the government to define the necessary risk tolerance? Should it be written into your law?

Checkmate, liberal

> Glad we agree that safe abortion should continue to be available.

In those specific instances, yes. We agree.

> Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in this statement?

I do not.

> Do you believe that a woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion if the risk of death is too high for her risk tolerance, or what you want it to be (i.e. 90% risk of death)?

As long as the risk level is reasonable. You aren't going to make me agree that 5% risk is too much risk to take for a woman who is pregnant.

Apply it to the self defense argument. If I thought someone was a 1% risk to myself in an encounter, do I have a right to kill that person? No.

If I have a 95% risk that I will die from the encounter, then yes. I believe I have a legal right to defend (up to killing said person if needed) myself.

> Taking a pro-violence stance against unborn babies? A new low for the moral majority

I'm not speaking for a group. Simply myself. If you want to twist my words around like that, please feel free.

Intelligence probably isnt one of his strong suits considering he thought it was a good idea to put a bomb in his checked luggage.

> a Catholic priest

They prefer boys.

The article is on a tabloid site (fox) that is known for admitting many times that nothing on their channel is true.

Its also a stupid premise, there is a reason that religion is not taught in schools and even worse when its coming from such an obviously immoral source

You know what bugs me about the general air of unease about delta 8 products? Anybody who's been smoking longer than a decade has smoked shit a stranger gave them in a sandwich bag or the torn off corner of a grocery bag. We were all willing to trust that guy your friend knows but we're supposed to freak out about what might be in gas station products? Gas station is a step up from buying from the guy behind the gas station!

The only time I've ever gotten an interview for a state job, my score was 71. However, they told me at the end of the interview they could only hire someone from the top 3 scores and I was 4th.

Seems like both the manufacturer and the retailer would have grounds for a civil case against the cops in a reasonable world.

Taking a pro-violence stance against unborn babies? A new low for the moral majority

There are so many misrepresentations, misconstrued ideas, and warped facts in the article as to defy belief. Because some people read the headline and bullet points, they’ll miss all of it.

Last I looked they miss like 90%+ positives in single-blind testing of TSA controls

I'd prefer not. As a member of the queer and trans community, people like her make me afraid to move back home to CC.

Some guy trying to pretend to be a US marshal to take guns on the airplane

Yup. And when they hired a veteran for a position I applied for (I scored 100/100 and didn’t get an interview) the veteran didn’t even last through the six month probationary period. I had also done the job I was applying for as a contractor for the Commonwealth for 13 years. It’s absurd.

Dude I’ve scored 100/100 on every Commonwealth application I’ve submitted (four of them) and have never sniffed an interview. I couldn’t even get an interview with the help of a director after scoring 100/100.

How did you score 107/100? I’m asking because I applied for four jobs at the Commonwealth and scored 100/100 on every single one and never even sniffed an interview. The only way to score above a hundred that I know of is to be a veteran, which I find to be absurd.

The article lists those accomplishments and goals aplenty

It absolutely matters because representation matters

>The doctor and woman most likely. If the doctor agrees that the woman would die if she gave birth (or have say a 90% chance or higher)

Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in this statement? Do you believe that a woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion if the risk of death is too high for her risk tolerance, or what you want it to be (i.e. 90% risk of death)?

She isn’t taking any action because she can’t take any action. Her child isn’t at that school and isn’t being taught that curriculum.

Not related, but it reminded me of the story.

Years ago, a music teacher was celebrating the 4th of July with his family. His kid was helpful and packed all the leftover fireworks into his suitcase. You can imagine what happened when they got to the airport, the way I understand it, the teacher now needs a full search anytime they fly, which is often.