mclumber1

Maybe they could all go on Oprah, win cars from her, and immediately sell those prize cars to cover the taxes on the cars AND their tuition payoff?

Scott's Tots IRL

I propose we use Schrute Bucks.

No, I was just pointing out that even beyond individual people, governments (even liberal ones like California) do value fetuses as human life under certain circumstances.

Many states will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered. Famously, Scott Peterson is on death row in California for not only killing his wife, but also the fetus inside of her.

Because different people have different ideas when the fetus becomes a life. What do you think? When does a fetus become a human being?

treasonsn't

I haven't been able to find any information on what happens if a person willingly breaks executive privilege against the wishes of the President. I don't think it's illegal, just unorthodox.

So Sater is like James Bond?

Maybe a little light treason then?

The customer was obviously resisting.

Eh, we're not really. We are just really inefficient at using existing resources. The carrying capacity for humans (on Earth) is probably 10 times the current population if we managed our resources correctly.

Up to 45 since they could be neckbeards living in their mother's basement.

Wear protection please.

But why? Are they not both rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

I thought about asking this question in the Alabama abortion thread, but I didn't want to derail it any further. What do you think? On the right, you have states trying to further restrict (or outright ban) abortions, which have been constitutional since the 1970s. On the left, you have states trying to further restrict (or outright ban) firearms, which are also a constitutional right. Discuss.

I guess that's sort of a positive?

Get yourself a salt water pool and hot tub system. Way easier to care for than chlorine systems and better for your skin.

Ugh. I'm not advocating to outlaw abortion. I hope people ITT understand that.

Off topic, but I don't believe the state should be involved in marriage, beyond recognizing it as a business contract between two (or more) people, and to help settle disputes - sort of like what the government already does for civil suits.

It's relevant to the fact that women can use financial burden as a reason for having an abortion. EDIT: I suppose a woman doesn't need a reason to have an abortion, because that is her right. I definitely don't want to go down the road that Alabama or other states are currently going down. I do think we could live with having a more restrictive approach to abortion like what they have in a lot of European countries though.

ITT: We laugh at the idea of divorce being a financial burden, but are ok with aborting a fetus due to raising a child being a financial burden. I know that those two ideas were not discussed in the same context, I just think it's interesting.

I guess I'm not adequately conveying my thoughts here. What these people did was absolutely terrorism - but I just think it's overkill in some regards when the offender is already going to face execution or life in prison. IDK.