General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
From the first line of the article you posted: Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Germanos, stop distorting my statements. What I actually said is dramatically different from what you so-called "quoted." I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator of an African country, or a Muslim fundamentalist country, not from a politician of a Western, "enlightened" country. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
There was no need to mention Africans or Muslims AT ALL. Apparently YOU tie Africans and Muslims to this while you have not a single thread of evidence to back your prejudice up.
You should be aware that it's the generalisation of groups is harmfull. How often you do not hear prejudiced statements on gays and when the bigots are confronted say: "I have nothing against gays, some of my best friends are gay." At the moment that's the level of your defence for your bigoted remarks ("I didn't say ALL"). |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. Great. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
Maybe it's just throwing a bone to pro-life constituents with the full knowledge that it wouldn't fly in court were it to be passed, which it wouldn't be anyway. ![]() That's all this is about... looking good to the people that elected you. It happens all the time. This is really a non story. The only story here is the typical Politician playing up to his supporters. |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|