"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[United Muscovite Nations]

17.8 deaths per 100,000 births.

That seems like a risk to me, one you are forcing a woman to take against her will. I will once again ask the question, in what other scenario is one person allowed to force another to take on those types of risks against there will?

It's a little over twice as deadly as being 15-24, and less than twice as deadly as being 25-34.

[Hashirajima]

That seems like a risk to me, one you are forcing a woman to take against her will. I will once again ask the question, in what other scenario is one person allowed to force another to take on those types of risks against there will?

It's a little over twice as deadly as being 15-24, and less than twice as deadly as being 25-34.

Still it is a risk, no?

[Chessmistress]

I have to admit that I actually have problems with this thread.
Let's try to keep self-control: I disagree, very very very much, with some posters here, and I also think that the proposed bill is well beyond disgusting.
I also have some considerations about the ugly cowboy pretending to be a politician who drafted the bill, but I prefer to not tell.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Try shooting a squatter in your shed, and see how the police take it, especially since, in many states, squatters' rights are a thing.

I wouldn't shoot him, but I'd definitely kick him off my property, and if the squatter has a weapon or threatens me, initiate castle law/doctrine and remove them by any means necessary.

You do not have the legal right to remove someone from your property by any means necessary.

[Neutraligon]

That seems like a risk to me, one you are forcing a woman to take against her will. I will once again ask the question, in what other scenario is one person allowed to force another to take on those types of risks against there will?

It's a little over twice as deadly as being 15-24, and less than twice as deadly as being 25-34.

And? You are still forcing me to take on additional risks I do not agree to. You still are not answering the question, do I need to ask it again?

[The V O I D]

I wouldn't shoot him, but I'd definitely kick him off my property, and if the squatter has a weapon or threatens me, initiate castle law/doctrine and remove them by any means necessary.

You do not have the legal right to remove someone from your property by any means necessary.

Someone hasn't heard of castle laws/doctrine.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What are you on about? Of course you can - especially in cases where they are a threat to you. And if that trespasser is there and unwanted or even unknown about, you can't really assess their threat while they live.

Killing in self-defense is only legal if you have reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to your life. You cannot kill someone just for being on your property, that's ridiculous.

Here in Texas I can shoot the first motherfucker that trespasses my house and the cops can't do shit about it.

The moment someone trespasses and I don't know them or what business do they have at my house, I am legally allowed to shoot them. Whether they die, or not, is not my problem.

[Neutraligon]

I wouldn't shoot him, but I'd definitely kick him off my property, and if the squatter has a weapon or threatens me, initiate castle law/doctrine and remove them by any means necessary.

You do not have the legal right to remove someone from your property by any means necessary.

Actually you fear for your life, and that can be for as simple a reason as someone you have not allowed entering your property against your will, the castle doctrine says you can remove them by force, which can include killing them.

[The V O I D]

I have to admit that I actually have problems with this thread.
Let's try to keep self-control: I disagree, very very very much, with some posters here, and I also think that the proposed bill is well beyond disgusting.
I also have some considerations about the ugly cowboy pretending to be a politician who drafted the bill, but I prefer to not tell.

For once, Chess, I find myself agreeing with you. This bill and everyone associated with it are disgusting.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have to admit that I actually have problems with this thread.
Let's try to keep self-control: I disagree, very very very much, with some posters here, and I also think that the proposed bill is well beyond disgusting.
I also have some considerations about the ugly cowboy pretending to be a politician who drafted the bill, but I prefer to not tell.

Huh, we're both on the same side of the fence.

Good to see you around, by the way.

[Salandriagado]

In those parts of the world where abandoning them is illegal, yes.

Let me ask you this: if those arrangements were not available, would it be justifiable to allow your child to die for convenience?

Morally? No. In law? Yes, it should be, assuming that there is really no such provision. Because there's a fucking huge world of difference between what I think is immoral and what I want to ban.

[Mechanisburg]

If I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, I'm not going to stop killing until I ensure my safety. Fuck everyone else.

Even if the violinist is weak and paralyzed in this situation, as long as he lives even partially the others will continue to try and kidnap me or keep me there to keep him alive. If he's dead, they no longer have use for me so I need to be killed now, too.

Either way, everyone in my path to freedom and safety is a threat.

Your situation is invalid.

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

Nah. They sound like a person who values their right to sovereignty of body and that would exercise their right to self-defense: it makes complete sense to excise from the fabric of the universe a threat, that has already shown itself to be a threat, and that could and would continue to be a threat otherwise. This, by the way, is why we jail people.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, in this case you ARE allowed to unplug yourself. Hell, you shouldn't even be plugged in without your consent.

My point is that although you have the right to unplug yourself, you do not have the right to kill him by destroying his body. This as an abortion analogy, and would also extend to fetuses.

Most abortion procedures which do destroy the body are banned by Federal law.

[Neutraligon]

Let me ask you this: if those arrangements were not available, would it be justifiable to allow your child to die for convenience?

Morally? No. In law? Yes, it should be, assuming that there is really no such provision. Because there's a fucking huge world of difference between what I think is immoral and what I want to ban.

Which was basically my point earlier. I find the bible to be an immoral piece of shit book. That does not mean I wish to ban it or any religion that happens to be based on it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Killing in self-defense is only legal if you have reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to your life. You cannot kill someone just for being on your property, that's ridiculous.

Here in Texas I can shoot the first motherfucker that trespasses my house and the cops can't do shit about it.

The moment someone trespasses and I don't know them or what business do they have at my house, I am legally allowed to shoot them. Whether they die, or not, is not my problem.

In your house, not on your property in-general, and even then, that depends on what they are doing in your house, and how they respond to you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Let me ask you this: if those arrangements were not available, would it be justifiable to allow your child to die for convenience?

Morally? No. In law? Yes, it should be, assuming that there is really no such provision. Because there's a fucking huge world of difference between what I think is immoral and what I want to ban.

I think that that is basically murder, and should be banned.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here in Texas I can shoot the first motherfucker that trespasses my house and the cops can't do shit about it.

The moment someone trespasses and I don't know them or what business do they have at my house, I am legally allowed to shoot them. Whether they die, or not, is not my problem.

In your house, not on your property in-general, and even then, that depends on what they are doing in your house, and how they respond to you.

My house = my property. Whether they are in the backyard, or not, is irrelevant to the cops. Someone tries to trespass across my patio fence and they're meeting lead in their torso from a revolver. I cannot kill someone already out of my property and running away, but the moment they step an inch into my property without my permission is fair game.

They have to request my permission before they enter my property, that is an absolute right I have as the owner of the property.

[Neutraligon]

My point is that although you have the right to unplug yourself, you do not have the right to kill him by destroying his body. This as an abortion analogy, and would also extend to fetuses.

Most abortion procedures which do destroy the body are banned by Federal law.

From planned parenthood for in clinic procedures

In-clinic abortion works by using suction to take a pregnancy out of your uterus. There are a couple of kinds of in-clinic abortion procedures. Your doctor or nurse will know which type is right for you, depending on how far you are into your pregnancy.

Suction abortion (also called vacuum aspiration) is the most common type of in-clinic abortion. It uses gentle suction to empty your uterus. It's usually used until about 14-16 weeks after your last period.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) is another kind of in-clinic abortion procedure. It uses suction and medical tools to empty your uterus. You can get a D&E later in a pregnancy than aspiration abortion -- usually if it has been 16 weeks or longer since your last period.

[Walrusvylon]

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

No. I am perfectly logical and in the right in this situation.

You're telling me you'd let the guy they wanna keep alive live, even after unplugging, only for his people to come after you again and again until they're forced to kill you and do a kidney transplant - or worse?

Not happening to me, no sir. All threats to my life and freedom are going to be extinguished, with very few exemptions.

You're forgetting that the violinist is not a threat to you in any way.

[Pu4GatoRy]

Slavery is morally more tolerable than the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocents, wouldn't you say?

No, especially when that slavery involved forcibly hooking me up to people.

I don't want to say your wrong, but think about what you just said. Like, for real. No.

God:"Alright, choose between thousands of unborn-children losing their right to live, or your freedoms.
You: "OH GOD NO! THAT WOULD BE LIKE SLAVERY! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO FEEL PAIN!" (presses button labeled abortion)

[Chessmistress]

I have to admit that I actually have problems with this thread.
Let's try to keep self-control: I disagree, very very very much, with some posters here, and I also think that the proposed bill is well beyond disgusting.
I also have some considerations about the ugly cowboy pretending to be a politician who drafted the bill, but I prefer to not tell.

Huh, we're both on the same side of the fence.

Good to see you around, by the way.

Thank you.
There will be a global strike next 8 March, I'm pretty sure it'll be very effective against this total aberration.

[Neutraligon]

Morally? No. In law? Yes, it should be, assuming that there is really no such provision. Because there's a fucking huge world of difference between what I think is immoral and what I want to ban.

I think that that is basically murder, and should be banned.

And I think your bible is immoral, should I be allowed to ban it?

[The V O I D]

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

Nah. They sound like a person who values their right to sovereignty of body and that would exercise their right to self-defense: it makes complete sense to excise from the fabric of the universe a threat, that has already shown itself to be a threat, and that could and would continue to be a threat otherwise. This, by the way, is why we jail people.

I don't go by 'they' but thanks for taking the safe route in gender identification.

My biological sex and gender identification are both male, though.

[Salandriagado]

Morally? No. In law? Yes, it should be, assuming that there is really no such provision. Because there's a fucking huge world of difference between what I think is immoral and what I want to ban.

I think that that is basically murder, and should be banned.

It isn't murder though, any more than, say, refusing to donate blood to someone when you are the only possible donor that could save you is.

[Harkback Union]

In your house, not on your property in-general, and even then, that depends on what they are doing in your house, and how they respond to you.

My house = my property. Whether they are in the backyard, or not, is irrelevant to the cops. Someone tries to trespass across my patio fence and they're meeting lead in their torso from a revolver.

They have to request my permission before they enter my property, that is an absolute right I have as the owner of the property.

One day, I will go to america, buy a pump-action shotgun, a crate of ammo and a nice house in the suburbs and shoot every living creature that dares step on my lawn.

FUCK YEAH!