I think you do.
Already many states have, or are in the process of, defining conception as the point when cells become a human, and denying the implantation and successful incubation of that zygote/blastocyst is murder, meaning in a real legal sense even contraception is murder as most work by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant. That means essentially all chemical contraception, IUDs, etc are murder weapons.
This is not hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s the actual law being enacted in Louisiana, possibly Mississippi, likely Texas, eventually all 22 states outlawing abortion.
It’s not just about abortions, it’s about women being forced back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, and returning to the misogynistic ideals of the man Alito gleefully quoted in the leaked decision, Sir Matthew Hale, who believed husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives (it’s their right), and disobedient women are likely witches.
I’m pretty sure you understand.

BTW- still waiting to hear how much more in taxes you’re willing to pay to support the unwanted children this policy forces on mostly poor women. *crickets*

No one understands Republicans. Their ideas are completely divorced from reality, science, reason, sanity, and morality.

If you don’t like the law, you can just move (remember, that’s your answer to why it’s ok for Republicans to CHANGE the laws). There are plenty of places where abortion is illegal….mostly shithole countries as you call them. Don’t make America one of those.

More lies and nonsense.
No one kills children like that besides Republicans getting secret back alley abortions…I only know you people do that because you accused others, and that’s a guarantee you guys do it no matter how outrageous and unreal the claim.
That is what WILL happen to embryos (not children you tool) in back alley abortion clinics without the proper tools, doctors, and zero oversight. Abortions won’t stop because you drove them into back alleys, they’ll just get more horrific, and that will be 100% on your heads.

Have Republicans set up agencies to take these unwanted children, over 600000 per year, and raise them all at now $275000 each and rising 3% per year? Have Republican doctors figured out how to force live births (without endangering the woman) at 6 weeks or later, and incubators to bring it to term? That’s probably another million on average. Of course not, let those babies starve or be abandoned to the elements, as long as they get born. You aren’t going to spend money to raise them, that’s the rape victim’s responsibility to raise their rapist’s baby. If they didn’t want that responsibility, they shouldn’t have gotten raped.

Are Republicans prepared to be forced to live in hospitals as living dialysis machines, living blood pumps, and living donors of any organ they have two of? If saving lives is important, you would have done all that before trying to remove women’s rights to their own bodies….but you haven’t done any of that because you don’t see women as people who deserve rights to control their own bodies, what’s put in them, and what they have to let grow inside them. Of course not. That’s inconvenient, so fuck those people who need your organs to live. Saving lives isn’t worth losing YOUR bodily autonomy….it’s only worth stripping others of theirs. Hypocrites.

Republicans LOVE killing, all republicans LOVE the death penalty for lesser and lesser crimes and younger and younger convicts. It’s not about stopping life from starting (which happens at first breath, not conception), it’s about controlling those that are their lessors. That’s why there’s no exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the mother (except extremely rare cases in a few places). You don’t care a whit about what happens to the baby, even less about the mother, they’re nothing more than an incubator to your incel ilk.

Blobs aren’t children….or is that what you call your children? It would explain a lot. Nerve pulses aren’t a heartbeat without a heart. Humans don’t have tails. Zygotes aren’t people. I know you disagree with these scientific and medical facts, that only proves they’re correct.

Once again, you make up nonsense based on your pure ignorance, Cartman. You just look dumber, more sexist, and more dishonest daily.

Florida officials continued their war on education this week after rejecting more than 50 proposed math textbooks that allegedly “included references to Critical Race Theory.”

The Florida Department of Education announced Friday it would not include 54 of the 132 ― or 41% ― of math textbooks on the state’s adopted list, citing “CRT” as one of the main reasons.

“Reasons for rejecting textbooks included references to Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusions of Common Core, and the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics,” the statement said. “The highest number of books rejected were for grade levels K-5, where an alarming 71 percent were not appropriately aligned with Florida standards or included prohibited topics and unsolicited strategies.”

The state’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said without evidence that the math textbooks “included indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism, especially, bizarrely, for elementary school students.”

DeSantis has been an outspoken critic of CRT, which has become a catchall term ― stripped of its original academic meaning ― for having discussions about racism in the classroom. Since last July, there have been more than 200 instances of public school districts in Florida banning books, the third highest number of incidents of any state in the U.S.

Democratic state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith said in a tweet that the governor “has turned our classrooms into political battlefields and this is just the beginning.” - https://www.huffpost.com/

He carefully leaves out the most important part about the network traffic they took from the office of the President.

The lawyer, Sussman, is being accused of lying in a Sept. 2016 interview about whom all he was working for.

He was indeed working for the Clinton campaign amongst other groups. It also appears there is compelling evidence that he was working with Tech staff with access to Whitehouse internet data.

Remember though, the interview is in September 2016, while the sitting president was Barack Obama. The lawyer was working for the Clinton campaign and presumably the DNC, because they were investigating the Russian hack of their email and computer systems...

But Fox and anyone willing to be compliant like Sen Cruz are tripping over themselves to make sure they fuel the false conception that Trump was spied on in the white house.

If you watch Cruz words here, he chooses them terrifically carefully to leave ambiguous the timing of the allegations about the whitehouse data to leave the impression by omission.

Just incase you're afraid of- you know- facing reality

========================================


IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the United States

Eugenics, a set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior,[39][40][41] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States during the Progressive Era, from the late 19th century until US involvement in World War II.[42][43]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of the British Scientist Sir Francis Galton. In 1883, Galton first used the word eugenics to describe the biological improvement of human genes and the concept of being "well-born".[44][45] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[46]

Goddard was a eugenicist. In 1908, he published his own version, The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity, and cordially promoted the test. He quickly extended the use of the scale to the public schools (1913), to immigration (Ellis Island, 1914) and to a court of law (1914).[47]

Unlike Galton, who promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits, Goddard went with the US eugenics movement to eliminate "undesirable" traits.[48] Goddard used the term "feeble-minded" to refer to people who did not perform well on the test. He argued that "feeble-mindedness" was caused by heredity, and thus feeble-minded people should be prevented from giving birth, either by institutional isolation or sterilization surgeries.[47] At first, sterilization targeted the disabled, but was later extended to poor people. Goddard's intelligence test was endorsed by the eugenicists to push for laws for forced sterilization. Different states adopted the sterilization laws at different paces. These laws, whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1927 ruling Buck v. Bell, forced over 60,000 people to go through sterilization in the United States.[49]

California's sterilization program was so effective that the Nazis turned to the government for advice on how to prevent the birth of the "unfit".[50] While the US eugenics movement lost much of its momentum in the 1940s in view of the horrors of Nazi Germany, advocates of eugenics (including Nazi geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer) continued to work and promote their ideas in the United States.[50] In later decades, some eugenic principles have made a resurgence as a voluntary means of selective reproduction, with some calling them "new eugenics".[51] As it becomes possible to test for and correlate genes with IQ (and its proxies),[52] ethicists and embryonic genetic testing companies are attempting to understand the ways in which the technology can be ethically deployed.[53]

Can we just take "glitter" out of this concept and do away with package thieves once and for all?

Exploding Bomb Package would solve the problem at the source.

I guess I’m not human by his measure then.

Do people really believe the universe/nature offers justice or mercy?
These aren’t even universal human properties, and they are purely human concepts…. they absolutely aren’t properties of the universe.
The universe is cold, calculating, and impersonal, not a moral, ethical, or empathetic guardian of justice or mercy that cares about you.

I hate it when the uneducated try to explain a complex issue and do a piss poor job of it. Is PFAS a problem? Sure. Are ALL PFAS compounds a problem with regards to their toxicity? No. The small molecule species are problematic because of mobility. The polymeric species are stable as fuck, that's why they were invented and why we use them as seals and barrier layers to isolate corrosive liquids and gases, and why we use them in such things as medical implants. The polymers excel because they are inert and largely unreactive. So - are they all bad? No. Are they all good? No. But it's too late - the fuckwits like Oliver have fueled the Emotional Response bus, and society won't stand for outdated concepts like scientific investigation or rational thought. Eight member countries of the EU are presently on track to restrict or ban all PFAS in any form, sweeping all compounds into the same category with no differentiation between a water soluble perfluorinated molecule like perfluorinated PVME and a one million molecular weight PTFE polymer. If it has a -CF2- moiety in it, it's subject to being banned. Good science doesn't matter any more, the knee-jerk fear mongerers are now making the decisions.

I NOTICE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE QUESTION OF HOW YOU GOT IT ALL SO BACKWARDS.

ANOTHER TOTALLY FAILURE BOB. RED HERRINGS AREN'T ANSWERS.

What? That's insanity. Are you saying the baby is fully formed at the instant of conception!? The train is fully formed before it rounds the bend, the pre-baby isn't. If you remove the visual obstruction the train is complete and functions fine, but not the "baby".

If I use your non logic, if I invest in a stock, I'm instantly a millionaire because that stock might make me one in the future. How about a loan...I'm going to be good for it!

The train doesn't exist before it's built. The baby doesn't exist until it's born. If you hear a clank on the tracks, it doesn't mean the train is built.

Anyone saying there's a heart at 6 weeks is a liar. As you said, no heartbeat without a heart, so anyone claiming there's a heartbeat at 6 weeks is a liar. Obstetricians and gynecologists and their national organizations agree, no matter what your friends the ultrasound technicians think.

When they write they observed a heartbeat at 6 weeks (can't be heard until 12-22 weeks when chambers and valves are formed) , absolutely they are liars. I'll gladly tell any you wish, there's no heart, there's barely a tube. It's not a functional heart until it pumps, which it never does at 6 weeks, or even 10.

Drs who hear it on the Doppler are listening at >12 weeks along, so they're stretching the truth, but not totally lying. By then, most heart structures exist, but aren't ready to pump yet.

Like I said, you got it backwards, you see the twitch in a "tube" at +-6 weeks, you HEAR it after 12-22 weeks on Doppler. You should know that if you really had the experience you claim....but you don't, so.....

Want to try again, this time address the question, if you are so experienced, why don't you know you SEE a twitch 6-18 weeks before you HEAR a PULSE? Why do you think you HEAR it first?

I'm going to expect another day or two of silence, followed by claims you answered this already, followed by another non sequitur argument ignoring the question of WHY ARE YOU SO WRONG!?

That is a nerve pulse, not a heart beat, and any competent tech knows the difference.
A pulse starts at 6-10 weeks, the heart takes over 20 before it's a heart. Any tech that sees a heartbeat at 6 weeks needs retraining....There's NO FUCKING HEART TO BEAT!

No, doctors do not relay 100% of what the tech writes...have you ever had one?! I've had a few. They also edit, even reject reports that have errors. Claiming they see a heart beating at 6 weeks would be an error, a grievous error.

Mom dragged me to work and I met ultrasound techs (among other medical professionals). That's what you asked, how many I had met. You fucking asked, moron. Why did YOU ask how many I had met if it's irrelevant?! You're a fucking two year old.

Take your meds....you've lost your fucking mind, you're over triggered, and you took too much meth last night. Try again when you can string a rational thought together.

You're talking about techs knowing more than the doctors because they see the scans daily....but they don't see hearts on those scans, they see a microscopic twitch in a few cells.

Hands on knowledge?....more than you, I passed biology (up to advanced molecular organic chemistry, you never even dissected anything I would guess)). Those with hands on knowledge and medical training say there's no heartbeat with no heart, and no heart until over 20 weeks after conception.

If you are implying I I should shut the fuck up because (you assume) I have no first hand experience seeing 6 week old cell clusters twitch, why are you talking about anything? You not only have no experience, but you have no knowledge, no education, no clue.
I've at least seen multiple videos of such "twitches", which is all one sees in person, and there's barely even a tube, there's not one structure of a heart formed, and there's absolutely not a functional heart for months by anyone's theory.

Triggered much?!

If someone can be arrested and prosecuted as a rapist, then they have already committed the rape. So this approach can, at best, deter serial rapists.
But that's nitpicking; the whole concept fundamentally misses the realities of what rape is and how it happens.

Cut the epic music and restore the original audio, and the majesty is going to drop by at least 100%.

Eventually it would be not so much a sound, but the overwhelming presence of the very concept of SQUAWK in your brain.

OK I will take a risk on this one. Every scientific breakthrough is supported by scientific personnel who run experiments and collect data. The head of the laboratory or institution gets to interpret the data and get the Nobel Prize. That is how teams work in science.

Its even in the video, getting the discovery discovered is a lot of tedious work, someone has to find the anomalous signal, that is great, someone else then gets to state a hypothesis about what it means, which when it proves to be right gives them the prize. Seems fair. Even if its just one on one student and professor, unless the student comes up with a fundamental concept, just noticing an anomaly does not make a Nobel Prize laureate of the student. Even if his line of search is originally against the opinion of the professor.

Now arguably in this case Ms. Bell made a bigger contribution than just collecting data and if you juxtapose that with how women were treated back then, its a nice story. But if she were a man in the same position there would be no Nobel Prize either. And possibly no compensating prize years later.

And yes she deserves her prize, I believe.

That vid is awesome.. I ended watching about 5 more about it. There is also another style on same principle.

Totally cool concept. This could really help remote locations or 3rd world places.

Eh, at some point very early on, Stelter should have realized the man had a genuine complaint. He really wasn't being listened to. If someone questioned my integrity like that I would lay out my research process bare and say "We do get it wrong sometimes, and it's important to acknowledge and correct it when we do, but we also don't always get that perfect! But we're willing to make corrections when we have it wrong. That is paramount to becoming a trusted source of information."


That sentiment seems far from conception here, which is concerning. If he's going to laugh off what seemed like a very sober book salesman...who accuses him of not listening...and he just laughs and barely recognizes the accusation for what it is...

His journalistic integrity was being called into question by a man wanting to be taken seriously. He should have said - "Pick a story we got wrong and show me where we're mixed up."


Or maybe an analogy; if you got pulled over and the cop in the window said "You don't have a license!" You'd probably just pull your license out to prove you had it. You wouldn't just laugh at him. (scenario requires a response here to illustrate the point, police are not part of the metaphor)

PS
And I understand that he's not actually levying anything but a cursory very generalized complaint. It's just, whatever he thinks the show gets wrong over and over, i believe he believes it and was being serious.