@BrockSTAR so homosexual love is indulgence, enabling, and patronizing, but heterosexual love isn't? is that what you are saying? that gay people don't love each other? if so, i'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. none.
@FrancoisTremblay oh yes! definitely i'm an antinatalist. but insofar as you may be saying you support use of violent coercion to force an unwilling woman to abort her pregnancy, i'm not sure if i can agree with that. perhaps i just don't want to agree with it because...
@FrancoisTremblay I know you have refuted pro-choice in the sense of saying a woman should not choose birth and should (almost) always choose abortion. I was basing my "for" vote off the question here not the title, though perhaps the title and question are incongruous.
@FrancoisTremblay If I said, "women should not be able to choose to have an abortion" that sounds to me like an anti-abortion position, not a pro-abortion position. Maybe my head is just stuck in a rut, though.
it still seems to me that you should answer this question, as it was specifically asked, in the "for" not "against." Women should be able to choose abortion, so you are for that. They should not be able to choose giving birth - but that was not the question here. Anywho..:)
...to have an abortion." In other words if a woman chooses to have an abortion you would allow that (in fact that is what you believe she should choose). Why force them when they would do so willingly? What you wouldn't allow is if they chose NOT to have the abortion. So...
1) Well, I am a bit surprised that you support forced abortion - not because I think it is unreasonable, I just didn't think you did or would for some reason.
2) Not to nitpick, but it seems to me that you DO believe that "women should be able to choose...
@Kunoichi 1) it is called logarithmic, not "algorythmic" (sic).
2) even if it is logarithmic, the total effect (not "affect") increases even if the rate of increase decreases, so what have you proven? nothing.
@BrockSTAR your idea of a worldwide conspiracy of academics and scientists is what is laughable. the simple fact is increasing CO2 concentration will increase the heat retention of the atmosphere. it's basic science, and you seem to have been brainwashed by big oil.
@BrockSTAR 1) your question and statements make no sense.
2) "god" is basically thought of as an immaterial mind. however, immaterial mind is a contradiction - although human beings are psychologically predisposed towards the delusion that mind can exist separate from body.
Phil R has every right to say whatever he wants and A&E has every right to cease working with him if they feel he is a business liability. However, A&E might have done better to express disagreement and take steps to insure that the incident is not repeated without axing Phil.