Affidavit

Why would any child need to take out a bank loan anyway? I feel like this is an easy fix by setting an age limit.

I expect to pay more too, albeit very begrudgingly. To develop meat you have to feed vegetables to an animal for months/years and then you need to process the meat in a very specific manner to separate the meat, the offal, and the bones.

A vegetable patty? Just mush it all up and call it a day, maybe add some beetroot extract to give it that 'bloody' colour.

The lack of competition, the lack of consumer demand, and the lack of government subsidies have turned what should be a very cheap alternative into a luxury good.

I don't care about prosecuting or criminalising in this case. There is already precedent for rehabilitation both voluntary, and in the case where a person's safety is at risk, involuntary.

I don't see why this could not be expanded to include the safety of an unborn child.

Noting specifically that I am talking about drug abuse where a woman intends to carry to term, not about locking women up to force them to give birth. I hate that I even have to clarify, but if experience had taught me anything, people on social media get positively orgasmic when they find something they can willfully misinterpret.

...it exposes the consequences of the “fetal personhood movement”, which seeks to legally define fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as people. The concept, enshrined in expanding anti-abortion laws, has led to increased surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people, with women punished for the outcomes of their pregnancies or other actions that police claim endangered their fetuses.

The way the detention staff acted in this is frankly disgusting. That being said, I don't think it is entirely fair to equate Alabama's frankly stupid abortion legislation with assigning a certain level of rights to a foetus. If a mother intends to carry to full term and is using drugs, I don't think it is fair to the foetus-soon-to-be-person to ignore this.

Who here would like to try and explain to a victim of foetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal opioid exposure that their suffering is morally acceptable because their mother had the right to choose?

It doesn't always need to be one extreme or another, there is a middle ground.

Yeah, I've said enough. Not wasting my time on this nonsense any more. Feel free to read my other comments if you want some counter-arguments to your 'points'. You haven't said anything particularly original (apart from your strange belief that 'enshrining' must have a religious basis, which doesn't warrant a response).

it requires a power dynamic to be in play

Tell that to every major dictionary.

You using an out-of-whack definition of the word that almost no one outside of the liberal-arts agrees with is not me being 'misled'. Language is owned by the masses.

~~race~~ 'cultural group'

Oh, it was backed up by 'a recent comment'? Thank goodness that's cleared up. /s

Also, note that my original comment that you replied to explicitly used the wording from the proposed amendment that it was an advisory body that would make representations to parliament. Using the actual wording is hardly a misrepresentation. If my wording upset you, then maybe you should have voted 'No'.

Rather than sharing a useless link, why not specifically say which part of what I wrote was a 'lie'? I'd be very interested to see which part, considering I specifically tailored my comment to adhere as much to the proposed wording in the amendment to avoid sanctimonious people coming and claiming with their noses 10-foot in the air that, 'I was lied to'.

Sharing my personal experience that I haven't personally been lied to is not a logical fallacy. Also, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the one negating it. You and other 'Yes' supporters can't go two minutes without claiming that, "THEY'RE SPREADING LIES!!!!", yet can never seem to back it up. You'd much rather wave your dick in the air calling everyone but your reflection a moron.