Depends on your specific denomination of pro-life. I think some consider even the morning after pill to be a form of abortion.
But yeah, for everyone else it’s a definite win, including the less extremist pro-life crowd.
Tldr: a very hard change to hate, but of course the most hateful people will manage to somehow.
Yeah hereditary nature is outdated for sure, but it does feel like whatever replaces it needs to avoid being a popularity contest, and be kept isolated from democratic politics of the commons, to protect exactly this oversight role
Yeah, don’t let the “us vs them” crowd pressure you into driving friends away just because you disagree about something. The world needs more lines of communication, not less.
In this country our sewage and drainage are largely combined in the same sewers (we built the system before anyone had the idea of separating them, and now can’t afford to fix it), so hard to believe it could cause any problems, probably just improved the flavour of the broth a little
Serious answer: the actually wealthy are too good at tax dodging, so taxing them is rarely effective, plus they can scare governments by threatening to fly their private jets to some other country if they were actually threatened with effective taxation.
I’ve heard it claimed that the only effective way to run a wealth tax is to do a single massive one off tax with no warning or lead time, that way the cockroaches wealthy can’t run and hide in the woodwork quickly enough.
Words to live by
I’m disturbed by the generic anti-war reference, it will depend how they clarify their position going forward. I’m ok with distancing from the ongoing Israel mess ofc, but I don’t see a low-military solution to Russia, at least any time soon. and I’m not sure I can vote for anyone advocating a reduction in military capability whilst Russia is building towards being a threat to Europe and therefore us.
Don’t get me wrong, I want a peaceful solution. I just can’t see one that doesn’t involve having a big stick to disincentivise Russia. I’d rather throw more money on a military that does nothing than hope that nonmilitary encouragements will work (ofc happy to have those too, but they didn’t work on the Nazis, and we don’t want another Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement scenario).
Of course, detailed opinions on complex issues weren’t going to make it into a statement this short, so I’ll wait and see, but I’ll be disappointed if I find I can’t support them just because they’re not taking Russian aggression seriously.
Yeah, that matches my understanding.