Court documents in the case revealed that Facebook’s parent company Meta supplied police with the private Facebook messages that Celeste and Jessica Burgess had sent one another.
Court documents in the case revealed that Facebook’s parent company Meta supplied police with the private Facebook messages that Celeste and Jessica Burgess had sent one another.
Yes, the only two options. You realise we are talking about grandparents? Grandparents have no innate legal guardianship over there grandchildren, it’s simply a social norm that they take care of them (often eagerly).
The second option isn’t even required of biological parents who are innate legal guardians let alone grandparents. I already said this once so the fact that you willfully ignored it is telling.
Also 18 years isn’t life, leave it to pro-abortion people to lie about the severity of everything simply to justify a personal convenience.
Nothing said here is true, and it’s so ironic that the Guardian makes a sob piece about this when what they did is illegal in most countries. (Including the UK where the Guardian is based).
I’m a little bit confused, which side are you on?
The side of reality? Even if you support an outcome, you are under zero obligation to support everything that leads to that outcome either directly or incidentally.
It may be a fact that the Earth is somewhat spherical, but someone that comes to this conclusion using astronomical data is not equivalent to someone to determines that the Earth is a sphere because oranges are also spheres.
Even if you support the pro-choice position it’s easy to see that many claims and assumptions made are simply false. This is true for essentially every commonly held belief, the vast majority of people couldn’t even develop the scientific method independently.
Still confused, and it sounds like you’re being purposefully vague.
Be more specific:
I’m actually not being purposely vague, you can tell pretty easily. The fact is that it doesn’t matter, so long as the actual criticism is valid.
“Should the person go to jail”- legally, of course.
Practically, probably not. Even though it was a clearly premeditated action, people are simply more sympathetic to certain types of people. This is why people will save their friends before strangers, it is not a question of morality that determines if your friends are more valuable, it’s purely psychology. Likewise people are more concerned about the person they see complaining about a minor inconvenience than the death toll of a famine. People will always fall for a victimisation narrative (everyone on this post is doing just that) so long as the “victim” is more appealing to them. Adult humans are just simply more appealing than fetuses, so incidents like these serve to whip up a frenzy despite the fact that virtually everyone agrees with the moral arguments against late-term abortion. (The majority of people openly oppose it, and those that don’t probably agree with a formal description of the argument, and just want to white knight).
“For or against a woman’s ability to have an abortion”
Nobody has any right to take conscious action to deprive others of future conscious experience, so long as it does not deprive themselves of future conscious experience. This is a fairly succinct claim that addresses the permissibility of killing the temporarily comatose, the suicidal, and individuals with ambiguous self-worth. (None of it is permissible, and consequently neither is abortion of a healthy fetus).
Got it. I don’t agree. Goodnight.
Of course you don’t agree, would I have said a word if you did?
Unlike you I find no utility in circle jerking over something I already believe with a group of other dishonest morons.
Good thing you’re a minority. 🤪