Atlantis

No. Stop it will you. If Roe vs. Wade (a flimsy ruling as agreed by serious people across the political spectrum) had never come into being, the US would have had many many decades of legislation to provide different degrees of abortion access. Those going OTT in either way would have suffered progressively at the ballot box over the years. Instead, you have this present mess of extremes. Whatever people, the US is still a country with free internal movement. Even in the very worst scenario, affected pregnant womb-carriers (oops sorry, I mean women), can travel to New Jersey and kill off their unwanted unborn child late into the third trimester.

What a weak semantic argument given the clear context I provided: "while in the uterus". I, like many others, totally reject attempts to lessen the barbarity of killing an unborn human child, including the use of the Latin word for 'child' https://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus The prevalence of loaded sanitized language in modern media - "reproductive rights" instead of late-term abortions (i.e. killing a human being) is as transparent as it is pathetic. I advise you better spend your time pushing back against sick arguments in favor of such barbaric killing including the possible 'mental health' effects on the mother if the killing does not take place.

In response to the 3rd paragraph: You're unwittingly opening up yourself to the charge of being unscientific. These government mandates (take the vaccination or be fired), did they give a blanket exemption to those who have already had a bought of Covid? This may only be a subset of employees, but they have very valid scientific and moral reasons to refuse a vaccination if they have already had the disease at least once. Or did you miss all of the controversy when Fauci admitted he wasn't sure how best to deal with the natural immunity issue? As for the rest of the cranks, I'm glad you used the word "unreasonable", the very definition of subjective judgement. Does it matter if I'm closer to you rather than them on the reasonableness of the vaccination knowing the risk-reward trade-off getting the vaccinated. Not really. It matters a whole lot more that they think even if its on the grounds of 'religious belief'. Just like your subjective opining, I think it is unreasonable to fire someone because they don't tick all the boxes of doing the best at reducing their risk of minimizing covid-risk. I'll try my best to steer the conversation squarely back to abortion. The bodily violation of viable living humans in the womb is massively more egregious than even coercing unwilling employees to get vaccinated.

You're making it really easy for me. Response to paragraph 2 below, response to paragraph 3 coming up: "Why is it so hard for you to accept that an employer has the right to protect their work force from a contagious and potentially debilitating or fatal disease?" It is not hard for me accept at all, as I said I support employee welfare. But you are so myopically focused on vaccine mandates that you forget all the other ways available to an employer can protect their work force. But apparently to you, if anyone supports many measures to protect their employees: - enforced mask wearing, option to work from home, investing in new air ventilation systems, changing the layout of the work space, even incentives for vaccination ....but is against {vaccinate or lose your job}, they automatically are against 'employer's rights to protect their workforce. Objectively false. "An employer does not have the right to decide that some practice like abortion, which does not affect their business is bad for society at large and take action accordingly." No cigar here either. While it is not my personal values, many others believe that abortion, especially past the first trimester, is an egregious act. Sometimes the 'medical procedure' may even have consequences on the employee that affect their performance. Maybe I should add the words 'potentially debilitating'. And companies fire people all the time for what they perceive to be 'unethical' or 'immoral' employee actions (outside the work place) that may damage their brands either to their customer base or advertisers, even if such actions are not strictly criminal.

I often think to myself "how do so many people become so dishonest when it comes to abortion?" Or maybe they are not dishonest but that they are so cocooned in their own echo-chambers that blindingly obvious counter-arguments by 'the other side' have never passed through their ears. In case you are not deliberately trolling, please have a look at the attached image of some basic human biology. The narrow tube-like thing in red is the 'woman vagina'; it's often like that when there isn't a penis inside. The roundish cavity directly above that is the uterus. Inside the uterus is a human. I know it looks like a little alien, but rest assured, it is not. I'm pretty sure that much of this controversy surrounding abortion is not really due to the woman vagina, but rather the right of the human inside the uterus to live viz a viz the rights of its human host (aka the 'mother') to terminate its life at whatever stage of pregnancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

I just read the PDF. Shockingly, it really doesn't support the second part of your comment, from "Clearly, the opposition to abortion is fueled not by a desire to actually eliminate them, but rather to punish women."....onward. Do you know what your assertions sound like? An incorrect multiple choice answer on the GMAT Verbal Section - Critical Reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Management_Admission_Test#Verbal_section You don't get to write "clearly" when it's clear as mud.

I know you post a lot almost everyday. That said, do you look at the context of my replies to other comments? Let me recap, from all the way back on page 1: 1. One poster quite rightly pointed out the selective application of my body, my choice 2. Another poster suggested the mandates didn't really force anyone - save for the prospect of losing their jobs. 3. The first poster said...that sounds hardly like a reasonable 'choice' 4. I then posted a hypothetical conversation to drive home the point of what a violation of 'my body, my choice' would sound like Also, 5. You, placeholder, earlier said " an abortion is not going to have an potential effect on the community at large?" My post was to address the above, namely - it is not okay to coerce people into doing sth against their view (in the context of bodily autonomy) - the community at large includes the unborn child (with emphasis on viable and near-viable infants, not 1st trimester) So, what do you go and do?..... try and dictate the terms of the debate by ignoring all of the above context and specifying everything must be related to "protecting the employee from harm". By the way, I did already address this point - The thing in { } highlights the marginal (and uncertain) benefits of one of many mitigating measures vs. an infectious disease that's generally not deadly if its contracted. The thing after the { } highlights the ridiculousness of 'my body, my choice' while ignoring the destruction of body of another who presumably would like live if he/she had the choice. The bit after the { } isn't work related, because I reject your demand that anything unrelated to work is not morally relevant, though it does actually address your 'community at large' quip.

Congratulations. Your comment is: 1. Really Sick - "because 20 innocent people got massacred, I wanna see many many more die of the same fate to make them start to understand my P.O.V. better" 2. Really Thick - surely the lone gunmen would be shot to pieces within seconds? Because it's the NRA? R for Rifle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle

Doing something about it? In the US? You're kidding right? Many Democrats and liberal types are against stop-and-frisk, and involuntary commitment to mental institutions, armed security on campus because...'racism' or something. [Refer to everything-is-about-racism sentiment in 4th post.] Gun-owning liberal types don't even blink when deflecting blame to Trump / the NRA because, you know, their gun ownership and use is the sensible, good kind. Not the perverted, sick ownership and use by those freaks claiming they are protecting their families or whatever! --------------------------------------- Meanwhile, many Republicans and conservative types are against nearly all forms of tighter gun restrictions and anything intruding on their privacy because 'freedom from tyranny' or some sentiment along those lines. After each high-profile mass shooting, these gun-owning conservatives load up on ammo and more weapons, offering thoughts and prayers while professing an impressive phobia of slippery slopes.

Whatever toxic echo-chamber you get your news from, I suggest you break out of it pronto. Find one, just one right? “Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236 Try the left-leaning BBC for an example. Try and find it on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News. Is it even on Foxnews main page yet? Wasn’t to be found a few hours ago. Save your apology, just learn to control yourself.

“If the buy finds serious flaw not disclosed by seller…” - except the 5% estimate with caveat has been publicly disclosed for dozens of quarters already. Add to that Musk’s own public statements regarding wanting to solve the bot problem prior to his takeover bid and you have what looks like a dishonest attempt and passing blame due to his own impulsiveness. As much as I admire the future owner of Twitter, Patrick Boyle is once again spot on about the mess he’s created:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

1. I do not agree with your premise: it is not justified. It is way OTT to fire them, with very few exceptions (hospital settings). I wrote this: "how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some." 2. You don't get to police the terms of the debate. I actively pointed out the moral omission of the the aborted child because I think it is significantly more relevant to the well-being of "others" than potentially giving others covid-19.

Like I implied in my early posts above: not everyone who is against abortion does so on the basis of religious scripture. It's really sad how so many people think that the act itself is not innately problematic and becomes increasingly abhorrent along gestation. And I am very much pro sex-before-marriage. It should be encouraged world-wide for various sensible reasons and I sincerely mean that. Feel free to show me the study you're mentioning when you get time. With regards to Planned Parenthood, are you surprised that some people are not okay with tax payer money paying for something they regard as killing the unborn?

Despite your incorrect application of the analogy, I will say this to avoid misunderstanding: some of what Texas is doing is extreme and wrong. Not really, read my other posts. And Oklahoma is stupid. We are probably a millennia away (if ever) technologically from having that conversation.

You are correct. Why would I say such a thing? Perhaps because my focus on "others" doesn't preclude the life of viable infants. I'm all for employee welfare. I am happy to declare that. In terms of basic morals, how {increasing your odds of getting infected, not realizing when you are, and then passing to others who might develop serious conditions} compares to 100% ending the life of viable infants...is sadly still up for debate for some.

I'm sorry but that is not the correct analogy in the context that everyone is talking about. This isn't 1990s China where 9-month pregnant mothers had their children murdered to meet some guy's quotas. This is the US where "my body, my choice" is universally understood to mean a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. I responded to a post that characterized the mandates pressurizing employees to lose their jobs as less severe as another poster had characterized. I merely wrote out explicitly what that would sound like if 'my body, my choice' (in the context of the US, not China) was violated.

A non-Chinese passing judgement on China is laughable? So I need to ethnically, culturally, and legally Chinese to judge the state of human rights in China? I swear in another thread right now, you don't seem to believe that is laughable for male to pass moral judgement on abortions. So which one is it KhunLA?

And what about all the people who are neither religious nor feel blasé about gun murders? You do realize many people are very much pro gun-control and 'pro-life'?? These people span the entire range of very religious to atheist. And I'm pretty sure its not hard to find someone who supports the Second Amendment and also extensive abortion rights.

Why the dishonest sound-bite. You should well know that the obvious riposte from the religious right would be: what about the body of the unborn child. "I've never understood why any man's opinion has any bearing on abortion" Perhaps try widening your exposure to other points of view...or even sit and reflect for a while, and do the Socrates thing, and maybe ask...should I, as a man, have an opinion on vaginal rape, or is that a silly question that focuses on the sex of the questioner, rather than the morality of the act. It's quite easy really. You could do it like this: should I, as a non-black person, have an opinion on the morality of chattel slavery etc etc etc.

"Dear employer, I am not going to carry to term" If you do that I am afraid we will no longer employ you. "But, I will lose my livelihood..." But you still have a choice and it's your choice.

I think everyone understands pregnancy is not contagious. However, when it comes to second and even third trimester abortions, the human being you are killing is, in my humble opinion, at least as important that the 'community' at large. Besides, your response is to a post debunking the flimsy 'my body my choice' slogan, when it is the body of another human being decimated that is at the heart of the opposition to abortion. But you knew that already.

So, in a world where woman are pressured to carry to term via mandates, the correct hypothetical analogy would be - "There are no mandatory vaccinations" - "No pregnant woman is forced to carry to term." - "They are have a choice" - "No one made you birth to your child without permission." - "Most employers had this as part of their 'mandate'" - "The choice is hers, if you don't, you won't go to jail, you won't be fined" - "Any consequences of terminating the pregnancy is of her own choosing." - "The pregnant woman is exempt for a whole host of reasons, including various exemptions." That still isn't a good look is it?

Scathing Bill Maher editorial rant coming up in ~24 hours.

"Half of America is evil! These gun nuts are killing our kids! (But not the Democrat-voting / Independent ones, shhhh, they don't count)...." "....Why don't you do something! Why don't you DO something! Why don't you DO SOMETHING!....Huh, what, more police?! ???? No, not that!! " A school district defunded police. But it keeps calling them back in. https://publicintegrity.org/education/criminalizing-kids/milwaukee-school-district-defunded-police-but-it-keeps-calling-them-back-in/ These Districts Defunded Their School Police. What Happened Next? https://www.edweek.org/leadership/these-districts-defunded-their-school-police-what-happened-next/2021/06 Goldstein Investigates: Rise In Violence At LAUSD After School Police Cutbacks https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/goldstein-investigates-rise-in-violence-at-lausd-after-school-police-cutbacks/ Links below courtesy of @PoodThaiMaiDai on page 2 in the other thread.