NationStates

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, I don’t particularly give a shit.

Maybe in some other thread we can all remonstrate about the misery of an unjust and unwarranted war, but here it remains a terrible appeal to emotion connected to a terrible argument.

Next time I hear of the plight of unwilling mothers, I shall remember it as an appeal to emotion.

So in other words, no discernible change to your existing position. Cool story-that-misses-the-point-entirely.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I wonder how many Vietnam draftees took solace in the fact that they got paid, even in the face of terrible trauma, injuries, and death. The requirements for being a conscientious objector should not be necessary at all.

Insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, I don’t particularly give a shit.

Maybe in some other thread we can all remonstrate about the misery of an unjust and unwarranted war, but here it remains a terrible appeal to emotion connected to a terrible argument.

It's not a terrible argument. If the government can take away your bodily sovereignty for one thing, why can't they for another?

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Next time I hear of the plight of unwilling mothers, I shall remember it as an appeal to emotion.

So in other words, no discernible change to your existing position. Cool story-that-misses-the-point-entirely.

I suspect that no one comes here to change their position.

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

Children can't consent.
Even asking the question makes me wonder if they should EVER be alone with a child.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Jebslund wrote:And, should anyone be in need of those bennies, it's not a form of coercion to deny them unless they've signed the dotted line?

Not particularly. At least there’s a dotted line to begin with. Such is more than a woman gets with regards to this presumption of parental responsibility, or whatever such might be called.

Yes, particularly. To give someone a choice and then say, "But if you don't, we won't give you a job should you need one and no one else hires you, we won't help you out if you need money for school to get a job that will support you, we won't give you job training if you need it, we can and will deny you citizenship if you weren't born here, and, oh yeah, we'll slap you with a felony charge, up to five years in prison, and/or up to $250,000 in fines." is not giving someone an opportunity to volunteer. It's telling them, "Do it or else.". It's not a real choice.

Also not arguing that abortion should be banned. Just pointing out a factual error in your assertions.

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't try combining "should be banned" and "shouldn't be legal" in one sentence...

The Feylands wrote:---

Feylands, believe it or not, my post has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Making it all about yourself personally is frankly annoying, off-topic, and desperate for attention.

Katganistan wrote:

The Feylands wrote:---

Feylands, believe it or not, my post has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Making it all about yourself personally is frankly annoying, off-topic, and desperate for attention.

Yes it was, you emphasized that they were siding with "toxic men" and even capitalized and bolded the "YOU" to emphasize the accusation. It was both toxic and accusatory. Don't act like they're making up that you attacked them.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.

Yeah, turns out some of us aren't into punishing children for the sins of their parents. Crazy.

/s

Actually, you are if you force children raped by their parents to bear children.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, I don’t particularly give a shit.

Maybe in some other thread we can all remonstrate about the misery of an unjust and unwarranted war, but here it remains a terrible appeal to emotion connected to a terrible argument.

It's not a terrible argument. If the government can take away your bodily sovereignty for one thing, why can't they for another?

No, it remains a terrible argument. I mean, if you want to pay a pregnant woman and give her free medical care for the duration of her ‘tour’ you might have a better comparison (and a lot fewer people choosing to abort), but that hardly ever seems to enter into the equation now does it?

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's not a terrible argument. If the government can take away your bodily sovereignty for one thing, why can't they for another?

No, it remains a terrible argument. I mean, if you want to pay a pregnant woman and give her free medical care for the duration of her ‘tour’ you might have a better comparison (and a lot fewer people choosing to abort), but that hardly ever seems to enter into the equation now does it?

We absolutely should give that kind of pay to all pregnant people, along with free medical care, who would be against that?

Neutraligon wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. You're using another mistranslation. It's not miscarriage, it's induced birth.
2. Fetuses breathe, just through unconventional means. Respiration is carried out by all animal life.
3. It still demonstrates the attitude that the unborn are recognized by God, even if that particular instance refers to the nation of Israel.
4. The death of the firstborn Egyptians was punishment for their murder of the Hebrew children. Besides, that which is made by God can be unmade all the same.

4. Yay for special pleading for god.

So God gets to tell people to murder infants and that's cool, but stopping a pregnancy long before it's anything near an infant is a horrid crime.

And no, it's not a mistranslation. It's just not the one YOU agree with, Northern Davincia.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:In the case of children raped by their parents, I would have to disagree with that assertion. Those pro-life organizers very much want to punish children for the sins of their parents.

Murder is mercy, war is peace, slavery is freedom. I've heard it all before.

Apparently not, since you didn't even get the quote right.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Most of those quotes are from the Old Testament, which aren't used by Christians for many reasons namely that the Jews didn't follow God's law and they were the ones writing the Bible, they include many things that brag about the things they did, and say God did them to justify them.

Then they are not Christian. It's part of the Bible for a reason, and even Christ said,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

They don't follow God's law? Amazing. So the Ten Commandments were repealed.

Jebslund wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Not particularly. At least there’s a dotted line to begin with. Such is more than a woman gets with regards to this presumption of parental responsibility, or whatever such might be called.

Yes, particularly. To give someone a choice and then say, "But if you don't, we won't give you a job should you need one and no one else hires you, we won't help you out if you need money for school to get a job that will support you, we won't give you job training if you need it, we can and will deny you citizenship if you weren't born here, and, oh yeah, we'll slap you with a felony charge, up to five years in prison, and/or up to $250,000 in fines." is not giving someone an opportunity to volunteer. It's telling them, "Do it or else.". It's not a real choice.

Also not arguing that abortion should be banned. Just pointing out a factual error in your assertions.

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't try combining "should be banned" and "shouldn't be legal" in one sentence...

I fundamentally disagree, though my primary argument in this case is that due process is observed.

I also consider this whole line about the draft and such to still be a strawman and a thread derail. Would be nice to cut it out.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
When will people then stop bitching about welfare dynasties where generations live off the taxpayer?

It's a step in the direction of MORE taxes and MORE government.

That's a horrible idea.

Well if abortion is banned, it definitely would result in a larger burden on the welfare state, and for calls to expand the thing.

Katganistan wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Most of those quotes are from the Old Testament, which aren't used by Christians for many reasons namely that the Jews didn't follow God's law and they were the ones writing the Bible, they include many things that brag about the things they did, and say God did them to justify them.

Then they are not Christian. It's part of the Bible for a reason, and even Christ said,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

They don't follow God's law? Amazing. So the Ten Commandments were repealed.

That's not really what that means, what is meant by that quote is that the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and as a result we can return to the only two commandments that actually matter: Loving God, and Loving each other.

So yes, in a way, the Ten Commandments were repealed, in that Christ revealed they only existed the serve the Two Great Commandments.

I am pro-life because well just because the baby is not outside of the womb does not mean that he/she has no right to live. Although I am not the one who likes to stick my dogma on the faces of people who disagree with me so pro-choice people can remain pro-choice if they want.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
No, it remains a terrible argument. I mean, if you want to pay a pregnant woman and give her free medical care for the duration of her ‘tour’ you might have a better comparison (and a lot fewer people choosing to abort), but that hardly ever seems to enter into the equation now does it?

We absolutely should give that kind of pay to all pregnant people, along with free medical care, who would be against that?

Do that then. Free contraceptives too! Pretty sure you’d reduce abortions to durn near to nothing, at which point a ban would be more trouble than it’s worth. Wouldn’t it be great to see your wishes done WITHOUT stepping on anyone’s rights?

Might even address that ‘need moar families!’ concern some folks lament about.

I’m not even being sarcastic here. I’m pro-choice, but I’m still in favor of ways to reduce abortions so long as there isn’t a ban involved... or any freaky legal wrangling.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:We absolutely should give that kind of pay to all pregnant people, along with free medical care, who would be against that?

Do that then. Free contraceptives too! Pretty sure you’d reduce abortions to durn near to nothing, at which point a ban would be more trouble than it’s worth. Wouldn’t it be great to see your wishes done WITHOUT stepping on anyone’s rights?

Might even address that ‘need moar families!’ concern some folks lament about.

I think we should do both. Just because we can prevent abortions best through financial incentives doesn't mean we should allow abortion imo.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Yes, particularly. To give someone a choice and then say, "But if you don't, we won't give you a job should you need one and no one else hires you, we won't help you out if you need money for school to get a job that will support you, we won't give you job training if you need it, we can and will deny you citizenship if you weren't born here, and, oh yeah, we'll slap you with a felony charge, up to five years in prison, and/or up to $250,000 in fines." is not giving someone an opportunity to volunteer. It's telling them, "Do it or else.". It's not a real choice.

Also not arguing that abortion should be banned. Just pointing out a factual error in your assertions.

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't try combining "should be banned" and "shouldn't be legal" in one sentence... :blush:

I fundamentally disagree, though my primary argument in this case is that due process is observed.

I also consider this whole line about the draft and such to still be a strawman and a thread derail. Would be nice to cut it out.

Due process is not a get out of consent free card any more than going through due process to force a woman to carry to term, with steep fines and prison time if she doesn't, but giving a dotted line to sign, would be a get out of consent free card for forcing her to carry to term. That's the whole point of arguing that abortion should not be banned.

I disagree. There are parallels, such as the false choice given in the GA law of six weeks, in that both are due process very much intended to present a situation as optional that is de-facto compulsory (the felony offense alone makes the draft compulsory. The idea that it is not is as absurd as saying murder is a valid option despite there being laws against it and criminal punishments for it.), that make it both a valid argument and relevant to the thread at large. That said, it's not an excuse to ban abortion (in fact, it's very much an argument for decriminalisation of refusing to be voluntold for the draft.). I find it very condescending that you seem hellbent on seeing it as optional when There are CRIMINAL fucking PENALTIES for refusing to do so. I see it the same as you would if I said that abortions aren't banned in Georgia because of that six-week period.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Do that then. Free contraceptives too! Pretty sure you’d reduce abortions to durn near to nothing, at which point a ban would be more trouble than it’s worth. Wouldn’t it be great to see your wishes done WITHOUT stepping on anyone’s rights?

Might even address that ‘need moar families!’ concern some folks lament about.

I think we should do both. Just because we can prevent abortions best through financial incentives doesn't mean we should allow abortion imo.

See, that’s where the failure arises. You do not know the woman’s situation, and for all intents and purposes you cannot know. You might have eliminated the reason for a great deal of women to find abortion services necessary, but such policies do not cover everything. There will always be a need for such services so long as a woman gets pregnant and does not wish to be. Discounting her reasons is both unjust and insensitive to how serious the situation is to the woman.

Better to reduce the need than to ban outright.

Liriena wrote:

Ifreann wrote:There is no gif from lefttube, breadtube, or any YouTuber whomst is good for this Y I K E S.

The worst/best part about the aftermath of the failed attempt to legalize abortion last year has been watching the "save both lives" campaign proceed to show how much of their previous rhetoric was merely face-saving concern trolling.

Sex education in schools to prevent unwanted pregnancies? They allegedly loved the idea while they were debating the legalization of abortion... but now that there's an actual push to implement comprehensive sex education in schools, the Venn diagram between the "save both lives" campaign and the "not with my kids" campaign against comprehensive sex ed appears to be a perfect circle.

Exceptions in the cases of rape or serious health risks to the mother? In the past few months the leaders of their movement have repeatedly meddled in cases of pregnant child molestation survivors and, with the complicity of provincial governments, forced those same child molestation survivors to give birth despite the serious risk to both the girls and the fetus. Oh, and one of them got that horrid "child mothers with capital letters" op-ed where they cheered for the little girls who didn't abort the fetuses growing in their, and I quote, "almost infantile uteruses".

It sounds like a wonderful time for all involved.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I think we should do both. Just because we can prevent abortions best through financial incentives doesn't mean we should allow abortion imo.

See, that’s where the failure arises. You do not know the woman’s situation, and for all intents and purposes you cannot know. You might have eliminated the reason for a great deal of women to find abortion services necessary, but such policies do not cover everything. There will always be a need for such services so long as a woman gets pregnant and does not wish to be. Discounting her reasons is both unjust and insensitive to how serious the situation is to the woman.

Better to reduce the need than to ban outright.

Very much this. This is at the core of most pro-choice viewpoints: Abortion on demand is argued for not because we are sadistic baby-killers thirsty for blood, but because no plan survives enemy contact and leaving abortion legal while taking preventative steps is the best way to encourage fewer abortions while still having the option available in those situations the reduction methods don't or can't account for. I for one would rather it not be necessary, but, so long as the world is not perfect, I feel it is better to leave the option open and acknowledge that we cannot plan for everything than to pretend to be perfect and have the fecal matter hit the rotary air circulation device later.

Jebslund wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
I fundamentally disagree, though my primary argument in this case is that due process is observed.

I also consider this whole line about the draft and such to still be a strawman and a thread derail. Would be nice to cut it out.

Due process is not a get out of consent free card any more than going through due process to force a woman to carry to term, with steep fines and prison time if she doesn't, but giving a dotted line to sign, would be a get out of consent free card for forcing her to carry to term. That's the whole point of arguing that abortion should not be banned.

I disagree. There are parallels, such as the false choice given in the GA law of six weeks, in that both are due process very much intended to present a situation as optional that is de-facto compulsory (the felony offense alone makes the draft compulsory. The idea that it is not is as absurd as saying murder is a valid option despite there being laws against it and criminal punishments for it.), that make it both a valid argument and relevant to the thread at large. That said, it's not an excuse to ban abortion (in fact, it's very much an argument for decriminalisation of refusing to be voluntold for the draft.). I find it very condescending that you seem hellbent on seeing it as optional when There are CRIMINAL fucking PENALTIES for refusing to do so. I see it the same as you would if I said that abortions aren't banned in Georgia because of that six-week period.

Again, I fundamentally disagree. I’ve gone over this and taxation before, and I continue to consider both as things for which people do receive benefits of various sorts and as such cannot be considered a parallel with denying a woman the right to control her own body.

Frankly, whether it counts as optional or not strikes me as a tangent best addressed elsewhere.

(also, I’m not IN FAVOR of selective service... I’d be quite pleased were it done away with entirely)

Katganistan wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
4. Yay for special pleading for god.

So God gets to tell people to murder infants and that's cool, but stopping a pregnancy long before it's anything near an infant is a horrid crime.

And no, it's not a mistranslation. It's just not the one YOU agree with, Northern Davincia.

God hasn't told anyone to murder infants, and I remain certain that you're working with a faulty translation. Get a better one.
Lumi already addressed your total misinterpretation of scripture.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:That's a horrible idea.

Well if abortion is banned, it definitely would result in a larger burden on the welfare state, and for calls to expand the thing.

A negative income tax resolves the issue entirely. Besides, it would embolden the police state if anything.