Sure it is. Not at the same rate, but given two spacetime points far enough away from each other, the distance between them can increase much more than the speed of light.

The thing about expansion is that it will appear "faster" the farther apart two points are. On the proverbial balloon you blow up, two marks that are close together will move much slower apart than two marks that are far from each other. And this is a very very big balloon. The ant called Andromeda crawls towards the ant called Milky Way faster than the expansion happens, because the expansion is very small at such a short distance. But an ant that's much farther away won't ever be able to reach us, because the distances involved means a larger distance increase too. And an ant that's far enough away won't even be able to send a light signal to us, because the distance expands more than the speed of light, relative to us and it. The edge of the observable universe simply means that anything beyond it recedes faster than c. But no movement is involved, just a distance increase.

If it weren't, it would be detectible. The cosmic background radiation, for example, would be doppler shifted and have larger temperature variations than what we observe. We'd see more older galaxies far away and more younger galaxies close to us, depending on how the speed of light had varied. That's not what we observe, though.
Also, gravity would behave differently, and stars would have different colors and spectral lines than what we observe, depending on what the speed of light were where/when the stars exist(ed). We'd have small stars turning into black holes, and giant stars much bigger than what is possible with c being what we think it is.
Again, we don't observe that.

Oh, absolutely. Usually by bouncing light back and forth between mirrors far apart. And we still do - we've just have realized that's it's not really the speed of light we're really measuring, but the distance/time relation.
Because time itself is variable. A second here is not the same as a second at a GPS satellite. But the speed of light in vacuum is the same.

Anyhow, that's our current point of view, because it makes it easiest to do calculations and make observations. We could use a point of view where time was a constant, and have a very variable light speed instead. It's just as mathematically legal as a point of view, but it would complicate how we have to perceive things. Planck's constant would be variable, and atoms smaller or larger depending on location. We'd have to shift our view of distant galaxies to being very small, close, and low energy, but having a very slow speed of light compared to our speed of light. A headache, even if mathematically valid.
So Einstein took the simpler point of view, and let distance and time be variables with a fixed relation.

The speed of light cannot change, because it's the definition of speed, not a measured speed. When we say that the speed of light in vacuum is 299 792 458 m/s, what we're defining is the meter and the second relation. If you "slowed" the speed of light, distances would shorten and time would expand and c would still be 299 792 458 m/s. I.e. you would not notice anything. Only an observer outside our universe could possibly detect it, because inside our universe, we exist relative to c.

Discard the broken embryo? Yes.

Frank Herbert's "The White Plague". Damned scary and plausible, not TV sci-fi. There are many others. Ignore Hollywood - aint no science in that SF.

Terry Pratchett certainly would have volunteered. But now he's dead.

Governments spying on each other is one thing, but USA goes a lot further than that, including industrial espionage, spying on civilians en masse, strong-arming and assassinations.
Apart from Russia and Israel, I can't think of any other country that disregards other peoples to this extent.

Moral being religious, as that is the only argument against being paid for sex. And if you think all sex for pay is exploitation, there are a few thousand sex workers on Twitter who'd like a chat with you. And we can only say: any of Donald Trump's wives would fall under that definition.

If women could be legally paid for sex, young pretty women would be rich, even if they started out poor. Always would have been rich, if it were legal. Being illegal, then men can hide them off the radar of the police and explot them.

Keeping the practice underground CREATES a subservient secret prostitution class owned by criminal men. Also prevents women from having the power to monetize their bodies, if that were their wish, which has been utterly forbidden by men for thousands of years. Not for moral purposes - the trade exists anyway - but to KEEP THE WOMEN FROM BECOMING WEALTHY and instead diverting the profits to thuggish men who keep the women prisoner, away from the police. Women are not meant to be independently wealthy, esp if that money naturally belongs to men, as it should, and women should be subservient to men.

And ya get the bonus of treating the women like rapeable scum when you arrest them and put them in prison. Win-win for men.

If it were legal, women would become wealthy quite young and retire early or fund any life they'd like. Gadz, can't have that.

If everyone is pretty, then no one is. Which would be kind of refreshing.