scene: the new world, any minute now.... billy bastard, an aborted fetus is resurrected and immediately dies because he is outside the womb of a birthing person.. repeat ad infinitum.
God could solve this by having those beings resurrected in grown-up human bodies. You'll know who they are, they'll be curled up on the ground screaming and immediately latch on to the first nipple that comes within range.
'Resurrection Day' will be memorable for a lot of the wrong reasons...
i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
These issues are no joke for a young woman to have to deal with. Its understandable why some women dont like to be told how to live their lives by men.
It is true that one of the things that seems to decrease the rate of abortions in a community is the percentage of families where the father does/doesn't stay to help raise the children. And it's not an easy problem to fix, although I think there is a clear approach that must be applied, with a view to the long term. And that is to make fathers financially responsible for the children they bring into the world.
It is not a fix, but I think that it's a moral imperative for any society that cares about its citizens (and, by extension, cares about its own long-term success). If you try to solve this problem by making abortion more accessible, you are indirectly promoting the behavior that leaves so many young women pregnant and alone, bearing the responsibility for carrying the child to term, and also unfairly bearing the responsibility for ending the pregnancy.
Forcing people to stay true to their commitments (including one of the most precious commitments we can make-- bringing a life into the world) should lead to more people acting responsibly. Either before the act, so as to avoid a pregnancy in the first place, or after it, which should lead to more children raised in a healthier environment and fewer children conceived by the men who would have otherwise run off to find another young lady to impregnate.
But in a way, this is also an example of telling a woman how to lead her life, with the additional 'problem' of also telling a man how to lead his. Freedom is fine, but when it comes without responsibilities, we end up with a nation of people who fiercely defend abortion, not because they believe in any of the issues involved, but because it's the convenient option. I don't think we can have a viable society if that attitude spreads to too many other life decisions.
original reddit post (removed).
He probably thinks that, if someone asks his grown-up daughters what disappointed most about their dad, they'll say it was the time he got sick on holiday.
i've been out for over 20 years and really can't keep up with the doctrinal and physical changes.
there have been so many construction projects, property sell-offs, and whatnot.
can someone clarify what exactly is in each city/town.
All that money spent and nothing to help hungry and homeless people.
And so much of it seems to be extravagance. I wonder how much money is spent on the locations and technology, all to produce videos of similar quality to what many YouTubers produce in their bedrooms, or that college students produce with a cheap video recorder and some friends. The inefficiency must be colossal. But it won't stop them from 'encouraging' the followers to give even more.
i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
I think I'm in the camp of most Americans on the subject- accepting of abortions as long as there are restrictions on when they can be performed. Many states are setting the limit at between 15 and 24 weeks, which is around four to six months, out of what is normally a nine-month period. I'm not sure if 24 weeks is too long, but I don't think it is too short.
I take some exception to the idea that it's not for "us" to decide, especially if the criteria is that I'll never become pregnant and thus the choice of having an abortion is one I'll never have to face. Does this mean that only people on Death Row should be allowed to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment? That only people who have fired a gun or been shot should be the only ones discussing gun control? I don't think it works that way in the context of a human community/society. I think it's more important to be able to confront the issue and see what agreement we can come to, based on a reasonable approach to it.
original reddit post (removed).
I am willing to accept that the WTS would not want to give Evans publicity because it would just get messy for them. But other than that, I would imagine that there are at least three or four GB members who would love to try to take him down, because he's gone at them many times in his videos. And if Evans is a raging narcissist, I can only imagine how bad it is with those guys. Evans didn't even get to 1,000 patrons; the GB has millions of admirers who believe that their words are coming almost directly from Jehovah.
They would risk giving him a publicity boost that he could never get on his own. I mean, people marvel over how much attention he is getting from the exJW community lately, but what did he need to do to get it? Have the details of his disastrous private live leaked online? Partly. Give everyone those sordid details himself in a long, rambling, insane livestream? Yep. Go nuts afterwards and expose himself as an unstable sociopath with delusions of grandeur? YES.
Why would the WTS even need to intervene at this point? I bet at least a couple of them, if they ever discussed Evans, predicted that he would eventually blow himself up. All they needed to do was ignore him. Anthony Morris has probably been buying more champagne recently, for all of the toasts they keep offering at their get-togethers now.
i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
The argument I’ve heard is the words “liberty and pursuit of happiness” in the constitution which is the grounds for gay marriage and everything else under the sun including abortion.
The freedom to live your life as you choose is an important protection that the Constitution was meant to protect, with the understanding that your decisions did not impact others in a way that was unfair or unjust. Many of our civil rights, including those which protect gays, are codified into law (or added as amendments) because they were not clearly delineated in the Constitution. Gay marriage has been left to the states to decide, in the same way that abortion will be now. That is how it works, ideally.
To me, the issue around abortion is the fact that you are ending a life, and that should never be done lightly. If there is a question of the life/safety of the mother, that strikes me as the one thing that would be a clear priority. The issues of body autonomy and circumstances of the pregnancy should be secondary to that. We should first consider that to kill a baby that is viable is effectively murder, or I'd want to hear a good reason that it would not be. We can work our way back from there, but that should be the start point: do we value human life, or don't we?
original reddit post (removed).
That looks like Paul Grundy.
original reddit post (removed).
Emily consistently dishes out the best burns in this topic.
i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
I think it's a constant back-and-forth. In the 80s, Reagan moved the Republican party more to the right and empowered the religious factions within it, and they made a strong push for more legislation and more control. I think this eventually led to the pushback that got us where we are today, and the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way again. If the Supreme Court had ruled that abortion was illegal in 1973, we'd probably be hearing the opposite arguments from each political wing today.
At some point, the pendulum will swing so far in one direction that the structure will topple, instead of correcting itself.
