[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's just ridiculous. Whatever, dude.

There is a LOT of misunderstanding in this current argument. German law allows you to use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself from an attack in the moment. It does seem to have more strict regulations about what constitutes such though.

For instance, if you find some crazy guy in your house doing unspeakable things to your loved ones, you are permitted to put bullets in him until such time as he stops that stuff. THAT is perfectly legit.

Should he run away, and you chase him down and KEEP putting bullets in him, THAT is when the court will kick you in the balls.

(this isn't me disagreeing with you or anything, I'm just pointing out a major issue that seems to be fueling this larger argument)

What the restriction seems to be is disproportionate force. You are only allowed to use as much force as it is necessary to defend yourself or someone else, but nothing over that, from what I'm reading.

As for the running away thing, that's a thing in the United States, too. You can't shoot at someone who is retreating. That can land you a very nice sentence in court should you have an asshole of a prosecutor.

[Fauxia]

I would make abortion pretty much illegal across the board. Maybe exceptions for life of the mother cases, but those are incredibly rare and are needed on a case by case basis. But according to that policy, it might just be useless to have the materials to induce abortion.

[Godular]

There is a LOT of misunderstanding in this current argument. German law allows you to use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself from an attack in the moment. It does seem to have more strict regulations about what constitutes such though.

For instance, if you find some crazy guy in your house doing unspeakable things to your loved ones, you are permitted to put bullets in him until such time as he stops that stuff. THAT is perfectly legit.

Should he run away, and you chase him down and KEEP putting bullets in him, THAT is when the court will kick you in the balls.

(this isn't me disagreeing with you or anything, I'm just pointing out a major issue that seems to be fueling this larger argument)

What the restriction seems to be is disproportionate force. You are only allowed to use as much force as it is necessary to defend yourself or someone else, but nothing over that, from what I'm reading.

As for the running away thing, that's a thing in the United States, too. You can't shoot at someone who is retreating. That can land you a very nice sentence in court should you have an asshole of a prosecutor.

Aside from disproportionality (I.E. pulling out a minigun when the other guy has a blackjack), the two sets of self-defense law are very much similar. Germany even has its own version of Stand Your Ground. It has been... somewhat misrepresented these past few pages.

[Godular]

I would make abortion pretty much illegal across the board. Maybe exceptions for life of the mother cases, but those are incredibly rare and are needed on a case by case basis. But according to that policy, it might just be useless to have the materials to induce abortion.

Why?

[Ventlimer]

That's reasonable. In America, we still let you shoot at them until they are off your property.

Which itself is reasonable in your own house. You never know if the guy is running away to come at you from another direction or something.

I agree.

[Omnonia]

I mean, apparently he's even wrong about Germany's laws:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/engli ... html#p0166

And I keep seeing a bunch of other sources where lethal force as a last resort is justified. German law apparently only prevents you from using disproportionate force (ie: shooting someone who's trying to fist fight with you or whatever), but it doesn't prohibit self-defense, even when it might result in a fatal confrontation, if and only if, you had no other choice.

- Claims I'm wrong about German laws
- Cites the same sources I'm using
- Comes to the same conclusions as I do

Your behavior is either not honest, or not smart.

Germany even has its own version of Stand Your Ground. It has been... somewhat misrepresented these past few pages.

Citation very urgently needed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, apparently he's even wrong about Germany's laws:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/engli ... html#p0166

And I keep seeing a bunch of other sources where lethal force as a last resort is justified. German law apparently only prevents you from using disproportionate force (ie: shooting someone who's trying to fist fight with you or whatever), but it doesn't prohibit self-defense, even when it might result in a fatal confrontation, if and only if, you had no other choice.

- Claims I'm wrong about German laws
- Cites the same sources I'm using
- Comes to the same conclusions as I do

Your behavior is either not honest, or not smart.

Well, let's see what you have said:

Thatbid absurd. The assailant does not have rights to life when threatening others lives.

And you're ever closer to 10 than 5, with every statement. This one is in open defiance of the most central constitutional values, and paints you as a hardened violent criminal out of sincere conviction.

You might possibly even be crossing from manslaughter into murder there, if you get a particularly hard-liner/angry D.A. against you; if so, we're talking life in prison (equaling 20 years until chance for parole; "for life" only in exceptional cases means "until your natural death" in the German system).

Absolutely regardless of what someone does. He always, unconditionally has the right to live. If you think he deserved to die and say that in court, you are just about guaranteed not to be leaving that courtroom as a free man.

That's not what your laws say. They specifically say that you can kill someone in self-defense. "Absolutely regardless of what someone does they always have the right to live" is completely wrong when your laws make killing people justifiable under certain circumstances.

I'd say the one who's either not consistent, or not honest enough with what they know and what they don't know is you.

[Omnonia]

- Claims I'm wrong about German laws
- Cites the same sources I'm using
- Comes to the same conclusions as I do

Your behavior is either not honest, or not smart.

Well, let's see what you have said:

And you're ever closer to 10 than 5, with every statement. This one is in open defiance of the most central constitutional values, and paints you as a hardened violent criminal out of sincere conviction.

You might possibly even be crossing from manslaughter into murder there, if you get a particularly hard-liner/angry D.A. against you; if so, we're talking life in prison (equaling 20 years until chance for parole; "for life" only in exceptional cases means "until your natural death" in the German system).

Absolutely regardless of what someone does. He always, unconditionally has the right to live. If you think he deserved to die and say that in court, you are just about guaranteed not to be leaving that courtroom as a free man.

That's not what your laws say. They specifically say that you can kill someone in self-defense. "Absolutely regardless of what someone does they always have the right to live" is completely wrong when your laws make killing people justifiable under certain circumstances.

I'd say the one who's either not consistent, or not honest enough with what they know and what they don't know is you.

He does unconditionally have the right to live, even though killing him, under very specific circumstances, is not sanctioned as a crime. You simply don't understand how German laws work, so please stick to things you actually are even remotely knowledgable about.

Get off my back, bro. Stat.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, let's see what you have said:



That's not what your laws say. They specifically say that you can kill someone in self-defense. "Absolutely regardless of what someone does they always have the right to live" is completely wrong when your laws make killing people justifiable under certain circumstances.

I'd say the one who's either not consistent, or not honest enough with what they know and what they don't know is you.

He does unconditionally have the right to live, even though killing him, under very specific circumstances, is not sanctioned as a crime. You simply don't understand how German laws work, so please stick to things you actually are even remotely knowledgable about.

Get off my back, bro. Stat.

If there are specific circumstances where someone can walk free for killing someone, then that person doesn't have an "unconditional right to live".

Stop making shitty arguments in the threads I am participating and maybe I'll stop replying. I didn't come here to argue against you, but if you're going to make stupid arguments while I am arguing in a thread with other people, expect for them to be called out.

[Omnonia]

Shucks, my ignore list is filling up surprisingly fast on here...

[Dylar]

What the fuck did I just read? Actually, a better question would be "Why the fuck would anyone defend a child molester and blame the victim for 'asking for it'?"

[Ventlimer]

So. Abortion.

[Ventlimer]

Shucks, my ignore list is filling up surprisingly fast on here...

Note to self: don't argue with you.

[Katganistan]

We already only have 3 clinics in all of Texas, for instance. A woman out of town has to take a day or two out of her day, if she lives in Texas, to come to Dallas and have an abortion, for instance.

Texas is a very conservative state in the sense that they won't open any more clinics, nor will they try to make it easier for people to do so. So women are stuck between having a child, taking a weekend off to come and do so, or perform an abortion either themselves or clandestinely.

And that's an incredibly crappy and sad situation. I understand that!

I just think that "let's give every woman the full right to kill her viable, 8-month fetus" is at least as crappy, if not worse. That is not an adequate nor ethically acceptable solution to the problem. I may not have a workable one to offer, either (well, at least none that would be constitutional and democratic... ),,, but that can't be the choice to go with.

It's been stated repeatedly that that is the case in a TINY number of abortions, that most are done in the first trimester. Why keep beating that horse -- it's dead and gone on to the big Alpo can in the sky.

The idea of universal and unalienable human rights. Unless such sudden and uncalculable hardship is near universal (which hell no, it's not), it's not worth even considering for a second to allow for killing fully formed babies with a functioning brain in order to reduce it.

Ah, so since rape is not universal (after all there are many people who are not raped) then a person should not be able to kill their attacker. Oh and universal and unalienable rights says that no one can be inside my body without my permission.

Yeah, the UN is trying to pass a measure that claims it's a human right to have an abortion if you don't want to be pregnant, so -- you're not up on what's actually universal on this right.

This stuff about late term abortions is getting irregularly out of hand.

's like a big argument over something what doesn't happen.

Exactly.

I find it fascinating how willing you are to kill anyone you find on your property without your permission, while denying that women have the right to similar control of their own bodies.

Given that you live in Tennessee, the former can lead to the latter.

That person on your property is not your fault, If you have a baby without wanting it, it's YOUR fault.
(I wouldn't kill anybody, but there is a big difference between a intruder and a baby, because the baby is the result of your choices.)

Six hundredth verse, same as the first.

BIRTH CONTROL CAN FAIL. That's no one's fault.

So if something is "your fault", you lose the right to control your own body?

It is always your fault if you have a baby, so there is no justification to murder it.

Rape is the woman's fault?
Good to hear.

[Dylar]

That person on your property is not your fault, If you have a baby without wanting it, it's YOUR fault.
(I wouldn't kill anybody, but there is a big difference between a intruder and a baby, because the baby is the result of your choices.)

Six hundredth verse, same as the first.

BIRTH CONTROL CAN FAIL. That's no one's fault.

So are earthquakes. *Badum ching*

[Katganistan]

In this situations because...you say it is?

Yeah, forgive me for not accepting your flawless reasoning.

Not because I say it is, but because of the age old law of sowing and reaping. Our choices have consequences.

We're not farmers, so we don't have to deal with the stink of bullshit.

[Omnonia]

Shucks, my ignore list is filling up surprisingly fast on here...

Note to self: don't argue with you.

As long as you don't harass me, or turn out to be a disgusting person who thinks raped children brought it on themselves, we'll remain good, even when we can - and in our particular case, do - vehemently disagree.

It's been stated repeatedly that that is the case in a TINY number of abortions, that most are done in the first trimester. Why keep beating that horse -- it's dead and gone on to the big Alpo can in the sky.

It's not dead as long as even one woman claims a "right" to it. Those "rights" must be categorically opposed, end of story.

[Torrocca]

Note to self: don't argue with you.

As long as you don't harass me, or turn out to be a disgusting person who thinks raped children brought it on themselves, we'll remain good, even when we can - and in our particular case, do - vehemently disagree.

It's been stated repeatedly that that is the case in a TINY number of abortions, that most are done in the first trimester. Why keep beating that horse -- it's dead and gone on to the big Alpo can in the sky.

It's not dead as long as even one woman claims a "right" to it. Those "rights" must be categorically opposed, end of story.

I mean, it shouldn't be opposed so long as there are things like medical emergencies that could kill the mother or the baby has already died inside the womb.

[Katganistan]

We've already been over this, it by definition isn't murder.

Honestly your position seems incredibly inconsistent, why won't you apply your logic to other situations?

In what way is my position inconsistent?
I have been making two main points:
1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.
2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

That argument is idiotic.
Women can be raped. Or is that not an exception in this warped argument of yours?
Couples can use birth control and have it fail. Or is that too not an exception in that warped argument?

Does this include rape then?

I'm going to stick my nose in the beehive, please remember I am speaking OOC, not Gileadian.

The way a woman acts and dresses, can lead to rape. If a woman dresses modestly and doesn't flirt, etc, there is no urge in the man involved.

Wait, really?


So men are mindless idiots that can't control themselves? Did you actually JUST imply that?!

You certainly aren't helping disprove the whole "I don't hate women" thing.

That message you are quoting was approved be a female friend of mine.

Yes, well, since we've only your word for that, forgive us if we do not accept it as true.

And I have a black friend that doesn't care if I rant about how niggers are actually the worst thing in the world, what's your point?

I am just trying to prove I don't hate women. Maybe I should let her argue on here, but she has the exact same beliefs.

I'm sure.

Then killing the rapist in self-defense really IS no different than terminating a pregnancy! So now there's REALLY no leg for GG's argument to stand on!

Logic is great.

Murder is murder. There is no difference. Enticing the rapist in any way, even passively (how you are dressed), puts you at fault as well as him.

That's utterly disgusting.

Not even for 5 year olds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

Or take the list of mothers at most 10 years old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_y ... th_mothers

Are they all responsible for their pregnancies?
Or did they all entice their rapists by being flirtatious and dressing sexy?

Child abuse as a subsection of rape is sometimes an exception, but by ten, well, I have seen many ten year olds dress in an enticing manner. (It's still very wrong for the man, but the girl is not innocent either.)

You're seriously saying that a child deserves to be raped?

[Omnonia]

I mean, it shouldn't be opposed so long as there are things like medical emergencies that could kill the mother or the baby has already died inside the womb.

It shouldn't be opposed for these exceptional emergencies. Never claimed it should.

But an elective abortion in the 8th or 9th month? (Which yes, I have heard crazy radfems call their "right to choose". Yes, that explicit scenario. No, they did not mean C-secs. No, not only in emergencies. Yes, I am sure.)

Ban the shit out of that, and lock both the mother and the medic up for a good couple of years if and when it's done.

[Torrocca]

I mean, it shouldn't be opposed so long as there are things like medical emergencies that could kill the mother or the baby has already died inside the womb.

It shouldn't be opposed for these exceptional emergencies. Never claimed it should.

But an elective abortion in the 8th or 9th month? (Which yes, I have heard crazy radfems call their "right to choose". Yes, that explicit scenario. No, they did not mean C-secs. No, not only in emergencies. Yes, I am sure.)

Ban the shit out of that, and lock both the mother and the medic up for a good couple of years if and when it's done.

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that already. Like Kat said, you're just beating a dead horse by pursuing this point specifically.

[Omnonia]

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that already. Like Kat said, you're just beating a dead horse by pursuing this point specifically.

I'm bringing it up when the "setting a time limit is wrong" argument comes up. Because someone who says that is, obviously and by logical necessity, not agreeing with it already.

[Katganistan]

Well, if we could possibly steer away from the castle doctrine, how women entice rape, and how children entice rape I will be an altogether happier Kat.

[Omnonia]

Well, if we could possibly steer away from the castle doctrine, how women entice rape, and how children entice rape I will be an altogether happier Kat.

*googles castle doctrine*

You just taught me a new term. Thank you.

[Genivaria]

And that's an incredibly crappy and sad situation. I understand that!

I just think that "let's give every woman the full right to kill her viable, 8-month fetus" is at least as crappy, if not worse. That is not an adequate nor ethically acceptable solution to the problem. I may not have a workable one to offer, either (well, at least none that would be constitutional and democratic... ),,, but that can't be the choice to go with.

It's been stated repeatedly that that is the case in a TINY number of abortions, that most are done in the first trimester. Why keep beating that horse -- it's dead and gone on to the big Alpo can in the sky.

Ah, so since rape is not universal (after all there are many people who are not raped) then a person should not be able to kill their attacker. Oh and universal and unalienable rights says that no one can be inside my body without my permission.

Yeah, the UN is trying to pass a measure that claims it's a human right to have an abortion if you don't want to be pregnant, so -- you're not up on what's actually universal on this right.

This stuff about late term abortions is getting irregularly out of hand.

's like a big argument over something what doesn't happen.

Exactly.

That person on your property is not your fault, If you have a baby without wanting it, it's YOUR fault.
(I wouldn't kill anybody, but there is a big difference between a intruder and a baby, because the baby is the result of your choices.)

Six hundredth verse, same as the first.

BIRTH CONTROL CAN FAIL. That's no one's fault.

It is always your fault if you have a baby, so there is no justification to murder it.

Rape is the woman's fault?
Good to hear.

Actually yes he thinks rape is the woman's fault.