Census: Less than half of England and Wales population identifies as Christian

Gee whiz yes. I remember clearly the first time I saw a young child who had been beaten to death by a parent. There was a round bruise in the center of her forehead, and three linear bruises like the marks fingers leave from a slap on her cheek. That image will be with me till I die, but what always comes with that image is a sense of monstrous injustice.

I can't change the fact that this stuff happens, and it is massively unfair. Other people maybe can look at it and formulate their feelings otherwise, but not me.
The parents had a choice. A child with no arms or legs or deaf doesnt have a choice. Is that unfair?
 
I can't change it, and I think its unfair. The fact is that so long as there are children, people will kill children. Do you think its fair? Can you change it? Do you think anybody can?

Sure.
Things that cant be changed are different.
But ok. We can stop gender identity affirmation of children, that is unfair..
Or do we need to decide what exactly is unfair before you start a theory on it?
 
OK

A man could adopt just as well. I'm not seeing it.

This is true, but my question was about women who can't get pregnant.
Is there anything more to discuss here? The topic is too vague, too big for this thread. Besides which, what women "know they can't get pregnant" as opposed to having difficulty in getting pregnant? And often this issue is about the man, as much as the woman. Moreover, no prospective employer can legitimately demand such private information. So it is completely irrelevant, in practice.
 
Is there anything more to discuss here? The topic is too vague, too big for this thread. Besides which, what women "know they can't get pregnant" as opposed to having difficulty in getting pregnant? And often this issue is about the man, as much as the woman.
The ones without a uterus, for example. Or if they have tubal ligation.
Moreover, no prospective employer can legitimately demand such private information. So it is completely irrelevant, in practice.
If you can't know who can and can't get pregnant, and you still do not want to hire women, then you are employing statistical arguments according to group membership in choosing individuals, and I'm not sure that you want to go where that leads.
 
The ones without a uterus, for example. Or if they have tubal ligation.

If you can't know who can and can't get pregnant, and you still do not want to hire women, then you are employing statistical arguments according to group membership in choosing individuals, and I'm not sure that you want to go where that leads.
No idea why you have trouble with observable reality.
 
No idea why you veer between non-sequitur, irrelevance, question begging and argument by assertion.
Yes you do; you know why. You understand why a person would behave like this in an anonymous online discussion forum.

It's not rocket surgery.
 
No idea why you veer between non-sequitur, irrelevance, question begging and argument by assertion.
Women can get pregnant as opposed to men who cant.
Whether a woman has a uterus or not is an exception. A woman might not have a uterus but a woman has XX chromosomes and female skeletal anatomy.
 
Yes you do; you know why. You understand why a person would behave like this in an anonymous online discussion forum.

It's not rocket surgery.
See the response about the topic and respond to that rather your perceived judgements of posters's motives.
 
Back
Top