Scholarship table
Bill Maher is an entertainer, entertaining you. edit: btw I didn't mean to imply that the picture was you, just messing around.
Ok, I get it. It is real though, even President Obama has called it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nMThere are people that absolutely deserve it, but it's been weaponized as part of a push for purity. One example: a few weeks ago my wife was rejected from joining her company's DEI committee. The rationale provided by an African-American on the committee was Asians don't face hardships and discrimination. She wanted to say something but was scared of the possible consequences for questioning him and explaining her background (child of immigrants who fled due to political persecution). That's a problem.
I've always found additional hypocrisy in pro-lifers also being pro-death penalty. "Every life is sacred...except this one."
There is more reason in that stance (which could also be described as save the innocent, condemn the guilty) than the reverse, which is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty (kill the innocent and save the guilty).
1. Only if you happily ignore the teachings of Christ should you be pro death penalty. I fully admit to ignoring them, but I'm not using religion as my starting point for the other issue you're discussing.2. Your point only makes sense from the pro life standpoint. It's why this whole argument will never be solved. Because as long as one side views it as a full fledged persons life and the other views it as not a full fledged persons life then the argument will go nowhere. It's essentially akin to an argument of whether vegetarians should eat eggs. Many will say no because it's an animal many will say they aren't meat so it's ok. And then there's the people who say "well what about Balut?" And almost everyone says "well that's just not ok"
So, anyone have a revised opinion as to whether we want to pull Creighton as a possible 2nd rd opponent at the Big East Tournament now?Or wanna keep up the circular handshake extravaganza about cancel culture?
2. Your point only makes sense from the pro life standpoint. It's why this whole argument will never be solved. Because as long as one side views it as a full fledged persons life and the other views it as not a full fledged persons life then the argument will go nowhere. It's essentially akin to an argument of whether vegetarians should eat eggs. Many will say no because it's an animal many will say they aren't meat so it's ok. And then there's the people who say "well what about Balut?" And almost everyone says "well that's just not ok"
I think he's pointing out the hypocrisy of saying "keep the government out of my life" while also demanding that the government intrude on one of the most personal decisions of a person's life.It's fine to be pro-life, but you can't be pro-life AND argue against government intrusion in individual lives or personal decisions.
Agree, if 'pro life' = life begins at conception. Which you would only believe if your religion tells you it does. But other religions, and science, tell you differently. yes there are medical people who say that life begins a fertilization but the majority are either at 12 or 20 weeks. So what pro life means in reality is that they want others to abide by their religious beliefs.
We are also talking about competing rights including the right of someone to medically chose what they want to do with their own body.That is why there can and should be shades of gray here. I can be pro-choice, where I believe the rights of the mother are greater than the rights of the unborn....to a point. And then after that, the rights of the unborn are more important. Where is that point? I don't really know, but "first trimester" is as good a point as any.
Josh Hawley claimed to have been canceled ... in a front-page op-ed published by the nation's 6th largest newspaper.
I guess dads have no right to be dads.