Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Moving Forward Inc]

Here is a solution.

Repeal the constitution, get rid of the democratic system, and remove the Catholics from politics on the basis that they have illogical beliefs.
Once this is done, make all abortion legal

Problem solved.

Democracy is supposed to involve principles of open debate.

Open debate has been made, and at this point social conservatives are so obviously insane that they should just be removed from politics for the purpose of preserving individual rights (like bodily sovereignty).

bad, stupid, illogical superstitions and prejudices ... yes ... you have a right to them.
But if you want them to be law, then you'll need to defend them against good men and women

Yes, they have a right to have silly personal beliefs, but if they want to enforce them on others, they should have to defend themselves and their beliefs from good men and women with guns.
And then they should die.

armed with evidence, reason, compassion and a sense of justice.

Eh, everything except the compassion.
Compassion is overrated.

Religion is an ideology.
All ideologies have a right to participate.
That's how it is supposed to work.

Even the stupid ideologies?
Hell no.
I don't care if that's how tyranny by majority (democracy) works, democracy is evil.

[Moving Forward Inc]

EVIDENCE --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/ns ... al-or-not/

Even if restrictions on abortion would lower the abortion rate to 0, I would still be pro-choice.
In fact, it would make me more pro-choice. Abortions decrease the growth rate of overpopulation.

[Grimlundt]

EVIDENCE --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/ns ... al-or-not/

Even if restrictions on abortion would lower the abortion rate to 0, I would still be pro-choice.
In fact, it would make me more pro-choice. Abortions decrease the growth rate of overpopulation.

Good point.
That's an argument against pro-life though.
I am pro-choice.

Yes. They have aright ... even to their obscene, hateful opinions ...
How else are we going to evolve as a culture if we do not allow the bad opinions to interact with the good ones?

[Moving Forward Inc]

Even if restrictions on abortion would lower the abortion rate to 0, I would still be pro-choice.
In fact, it would make me more pro-choice. Abortions decrease the growth rate of overpopulation.

Good point.
That's an argument against pro-life though.
I am pro-choice.

Yes. They have aright ... even to their obscene, hateful opinions ...
How else are we going to evolve as a culture if we do not allow the bad opinions to interact with the good ones?

Removing bad opinions from politics will perfect society and make it what it was meant to be.
Letting bad opinions into politics will only delay the good fight, and will make the evolution of society much, much slower.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Grimlundt. You're frothing at the mouth, and in between the sense you're trying to point out, are spouting things you probably shouldn't.

As I said before - everyone here has a right to express their opinions. What we don't have a right to do is to express them in ways that break the site rules. You may want to give them a look.

One thing you shouldn't do is make broad-sweeping generalizations, especially about your fellow players. You should not stoop to calling them names - we try to move past that grade-school mentality, and actually discuss and debate here. You may have missed that somewhere along the line.

In any case, no, not agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions. I'm saying you need to moderate your method of expressing them, or steps will be taken to assist you - if the polite requests to operate within the site/forum rules go unheeded, that is. I'd rather it not go that direction. Thanks.

[Grimlundt]

Good point.
That's an argument against pro-life though.
I am pro-choice.

Yes. They have aright ... even to their obscene, hateful opinions ...
How else are we going to evolve as a culture if we do not allow the bad opinions to interact with the good ones?

Removing bad opinions from politics will perfect society and make it what it was meant to be.
Letting bad opinions into politics will only delay the good fight, and will make the evolution of society much, much slower.

Interesting point of view but I'm not going to fight you on that.
That would be a long discussion ...

[Grimlundt]

Grimlundt. You're frothing at the mouth, and in between the sense you're trying to point out, are spouting things you probably shouldn't.

As I said before - everyone here has a right to express their opinions. What we don't have a right to do is to express them in ways that break the site rules. You may want to give them a look.

One thing you shouldn't do is make broad-sweeping generalizations, especially about your fellow players. You should not stoop to calling them names - we try to move past that grade-school mentality, and actually discuss and debate here. You may have missed that somewhere along the line.

In any case, no, not agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions. I'm saying you need to moderate your method of expressing them, or steps will be taken to assist you - if the polite requests to operate within the site/forum rules go unheeded, that is. I'd rather it not go that direction. Thanks.

Sometimes it's good for a person with ill-founded, illogical, obscene opinions to be called a fool.
Otherwise they tend to get the false impression that their opinions are respected.
I do respect their right to an opinion.
I do not respect evil opinions.
Now the opinions of these people are EVIL. Their opinions result in the cruel and unnecessary death of roughly 47,000 women a year.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01 ... ?mobile=nc
Their opinion ought NOT to be seen as equal with good opinions aimed at creating social weal.
They ought to be told that.
That's why I called them "morons":
Because they know nothing.
They cannot think logically.
They are cruel and unjust.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Removing bad opinions from politics will perfect society and make it what it was meant to be.
Letting bad opinions into politics will only delay the good fight, and will make the evolution of society much, much slower.

Interesting point of view but I'm not going to fight you on that.
That would be a long discussion ...

Suit yourself.

[Grimlundt]

P.s. If you do not like high rates of abortion, you ought to promote contraception.
The Pope wants to have his cake and eat it too.
The Pope is a dunce.

[Grimlundt]

Interesting point of view but I'm not going to fight you on that.
That would be a long discussion ...

Suit yourself.

Maybe some other time
Start a topic on democracy versus elitism?
For what it's worth, I'd sure be willing to talk on such a list

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I really don't care what you think about why you choose to call another player here a moron. I'm afraid in this instance, you're wrong. And you will be called to account for it. If you'd like to continue posting here, knock it off, and play by the rules. This is your final polite notice on the matter, and a notation has been made on your account to that end. Thank you.

[Moving Forward Inc]

P.s. If you do not like high rates of abortion, you ought to promote contraception.
The Pope wants to have his cake and eat it too.
The Pope is a dunce.

That there, sir, is flaming.
Flaming goes against the terms and conditions of using this site, terms and conditions which you have agreed to.
As the mod said, breaking site rules can lead to you getting warnings.
Multiple warnings can lead to you getting banned from the forum, breaking more rules leading to a ban from you even having a nation on this site.
If you want to stay, follow the rules.

[Grimlundt]

Grimlundt. You're frothing at the mouth, and in between the sense you're trying to point out, are spouting things you probably shouldn't.

As I said before - everyone here has a right to express their opinions. What we don't have a right to do is to express them in ways that break the site rules. You may want to give them a look.

One thing you shouldn't do is make broad-sweeping generalizations, especially about your fellow players. You should not stoop to calling them names - we try to move past that grade-school mentality, and actually discuss and debate here. You may have missed that somewhere along the line.

In any case, no, not agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions. I'm saying you need to moderate your method of expressing them, or steps will be taken to assist you - if the polite requests to operate within the site/forum rules go unheeded, that is. I'd rather it not go that direction. Thanks.

Can you please give a more precise link to your etiquette rules?]
Also, you realise you said I have a "grade school mentality" ... do you think this is like calling me a "moron"?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

P.s. If you do not like high rates of abortion, you ought to promote contraception.
The Pope wants to have his cake and eat it too.
The Pope is a dunce.

That there, sir, is flaming.
Flaming goes against the terms and conditions of using this site, terms and conditions which you have agreed to.
As the mod said, breaking site rules can lead to you getting warnings.
Multiple warnings can lead to you getting banned from the forum, breaking more rules leading to a ban from you even having a nation on this site.
If you want to stay, follow the rules.

The Pope is not a player here. Allowed, if possibly inflammatory to some Catholics. I believe the point's been made all the same.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Suit yourself.

Maybe some other time
Start a topic on democracy versus elitism?
For what it's worth, I'd sure be willing to talk on such a list

Right now, I am multitasking between many things and would not have the time to pay the amount of required attention to such a thread, so perhaps another day.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Can you please give a more precise link to your etiquette rules?]
Also, you realise you said I have a "grade school mentality" ... do you think this is like calling me a "moron"?

The links are right there. No one said you have a "grade school mentality". You've been warned and banned before. I would suggest you not push it.

Now back to your discussion - apologies to the rest of the players who've been engaged. Grim, if you would like to continue your line of questioning, I'm easily reached via tg.

[Saint Jade IV]

I find it incomprehensible that even in such a clear cut case as this, Generalites still manage to suggest that this poor woman and her husband were wrong for seeking an abortion, and still trying to suggest that it "wasn't really necessary". Really shows that pro-lifers in fact, aren't pro-life at all. They are pro-punishment. They might theorise that the health of the mother is acceptable as an exception, but as the reaction here shows, they don't really believe it.

[Grimlundt]

Can you please give a more precise link to your etiquette rules?]
Also, you realise you said I have a "grade school mentality" ... do you think this is like calling me a "moron"?

The links are right there. No one said you have a "grade school mentality". You've been warned and banned before. I would suggest you not push it.

Now back to your discussion - apologies to the rest of the players who've been engaged. Grim, if you would like to continue your line of questioning, I'm easily reached via tg.

I do apologize, and I will try and be less offensive ... even when I am frothing at the mouth having been deeply offended by others.
I do ask that you hold others to the same standards that you hold me ...

I will also retract what I said about the Pope. He is not a dunce. He merely lacks the ability to see that he is enforcing self-contradictory social programs to the effect of untold human misery. Or perhaps he simply does not care about human misery?


MODEDIT: They're called site/forum rules for a reason - they DO apply to everyone, and we DO hold all players to the standards set forth. Thanks.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Somehow I doubt this sheer tragedy will have much of an impact on bureaucratic red tape.

[Zephie]

The topic makes it sound like she was stoned to death for wanting an abortion

[Moving Forward Inc]

The topic makes it sound like she was stoned to death for wanting an abortion

You're the one who is making it sound like that, with that giant imagination of yours.

[Zephie]

The topic makes it sound like she was stoned to death for wanting an abortion

You're the one who is making it sound like that, with that giant imagination of yours.

"for want of an abortion"
no
it's
"from being denied an abortion"

[Moving Forward Inc]

You're the one who is making it sound like that, with that giant imagination of yours.

"for want of an abortion"
no
it's
"from being denied an abortion"

"Teh OP has bad grammar".

Yeah so what?
If you have a brain, you would interpret it based on what point the OP was trying to get across rather than what it says literally.

[Cu Math]

You're the one who is making it sound like that, with that giant imagination of yours.

"for want of an abortion"
no
it's
"from being denied an abortion"

nope, "for want of" implies a lack or deficit. It's correct

[Risottia]

Because it's practical. Easy to observe.

We could rule that the cutoff is at the moment when kids acquire neurological personhood by passing some kind of test (like the mirror test), but that would be awfully impractical.

But...it's equally easy to observe "the 23rd week of pregnancy and beyond".

Well, not that easy. How do you know it's already the 23rd, and not the 22nd? The instant the newborn is separated from the mother's body is much easier to spot.

Anyway, the problem with placing a pre-birth cutoff would be the usual person-feeding-as-parasite-on-another problem.
If you define via legal fiction that the foetus acquires legal personality at the 23rd week, it would have both rights and duties, as any person. One of its duties would be not infringing on the personal freedom of other people. Another duty would be not entering other people's reproductive organs without their previous and continued consent. And another duty would be not feeding off their blood without their previous and continued consent.

And no, there's no such things as a person having only rights and no duties. TANSTAAFL.

Basically, by placing a pre-birth cutoff, you make late-stage abortions easier.