NATION

PASSWORD

[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What policies would you use to reduce abortion numbers?

Welfare Support for Single Mothers
387
17%
Free Pregnancy-Related Health Care
394
17%
Comprehensive Sex Education
479
21%
Free Contraception
396
17%
Monetary Incentives (Child Care, Tax Incentives, Kid-Related Healthcare, specify if needed)
305
13%
No Changes
37
2%
Procedure Ban (Not outlawing abortion itself, but specific procedures)
73
3%
Outright Ban (With exceptions or without)
224
10%
 
Total votes : 2295

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2544
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jebslund » Thu May 23, 2019 7:24 pm

Kernen wrote:
Galloism wrote:I mean, they stopped doing it in 1973. But it was perfectly legal, and they still reserve the legal right to do it again.

The government still requires men to register for it in case they decide to reinstate it. Under pain of severe consequences.

Fifty years ago is hardly recent. Lots and lots of changes since on the whole issue of medical consent. Registering for it is not the same thing as overriding the informed consent requirement.

Laws that the government makes, the government breaks. Tends to come with the territory when the ones breaking the law are also the ones who interpret and enforce it.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 4970
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Fri May 24, 2019 4:03 am

Status Operarios wrote:Katganistan you may not be a direct product of rape but nevertheless I assure you that you are indeed a product of rapes. I have the audacity to say thousands of rapes. We have existed on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years and have only had a collective modern moral compass for two to three thousand years at the most liberal usage of moral compass. You sure you aren't a product of rape?


At some point, there's insufficient proximate cause to say a person is the product of rape when it goes back far enough.

Jebslund wrote:
Kernen wrote:Fifty years ago is hardly recent. Lots and lots of changes since on the whole issue of medical consent. Registering for it is not the same thing as overriding the informed consent requirement.

Laws that the government makes, the government breaks. Tends to come with the territory when the ones breaking the law are also the ones who interpret and enforce it.


Not under an effective, separated arrangement of powers. Which, despite all the grumbling about the US, we have.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2544
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jebslund » Fri May 24, 2019 7:51 am

Kernen wrote:
Jebslund wrote:Laws that the government makes, the government breaks. Tends to come with the territory when the ones breaking the law are also the ones who interpret and enforce it.


Not under an effective, separated arrangement of powers. Which, despite all the grumbling about the US, we have.

:rofl:

No, we don't. We have the illusion of such. The people who write the laws pick the people who interpret them, based on whether or not they like nominations made by the people who enforce the law. And the head of that enforcement branch? Is also the head of the military, who does, in fact, override the informed consent requirement. Even if the Judicial were to say that isn't legal, the old quote, "John Marshal has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!" applies. There is nothing forcing the Executive branch to enforce the interpretation of the laws the Judicial goes with. There's a social contract, but it isn't physically enforceable, as the Judicial branch has no force with which to do so. On paper, separation of powers exists. In practice, it's not so clear cut.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 4970
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Fri May 24, 2019 11:50 am

Jebslund wrote: :rofl:

No, we don't. We have the illusion of such.

Not actually the case. Working as a judicial law clerk, I got to see it first hand.
The people who write the laws pick the people who interpret them, based on whether or not they like nominations made by the people who enforce the law.

Gross oversimplification.

And the head of that enforcement branch? Is also the head of the military, who does, in fact, override the informed consent requirement. Even if the Judicial were to say that isn't legal, the old quote, "John Marshal has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!" applies. There is nothing forcing the Executive branch to enforce the interpretation of the laws the Judicial goes with.

Except the political suicide and certain institutional loyalty to the preexisting structure that now exists.

There's a social contract, but it isn't physically enforceable, as the Judicial branch has no force with which to do so. On paper, separation of powers exists. In practice, it's not so clear cut.

Sure, you can reduce anything to "might makes right" but that doesn't mean it works like that in practice.

The military cannot, and does not, ignore informed consent to do medical research. I cited my sources. Got any yourself?
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2285
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Fri May 24, 2019 3:06 pm

Electorate wrote:
Triassica wrote:And such bans should be seen as illegitimate and rebelled against, especially with the second amendment as women and doctors will likely be prosecuted for practicing their inalienable rights.


This inalienable right to murder, do they have it just by virtue of womanhood?


It ain't murder.

Status Operarios wrote:Katganistan you may not be a direct product of rape but nevertheless I assure you that you are indeed a product of rapes. I have the audacity to say thousands of rapes. We have existed on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years and have only had a collective modern moral compass for two to three thousand years at the most liberal usage of moral compass. You sure you aren't a product of rape?


Depends on what you mean by 'product of rape'.

You don't seem to mean "Born from rape" but rather "descended from someone who has been raped, no matter how long ago".

The problem with that is that we'd have to assume everyone is one (thus making any argument involving 'product of rape' pointless).

Even then, it still falls flat because we aren't operating with that definition. Even if we were, that doesn't prevent the main argument which is all the effects of a pregnancy caused directly by rape. The only thing that would change is tagging on a 'direct' label to 'product of rape'.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
Ashanara
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: May 12, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Ashanara » Fri May 24, 2019 4:24 pm

I'm pretty torn on abortion.

On one hand a women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body and not go through months of torture being pregnant. On the other hand, the (unborn) baby (but still is alive) should have a right to live.

I dunno.
Hello, I am a random nation. It is amazing how the moderators have prevented the NS Forums from being "ruled" by trolls. Nice job, mods!

User avatar
Country of CityTowne
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Corporate Police State

Postby Country of CityTowne » Fri May 24, 2019 4:32 pm

(Deleted because I didn't read the message I'd quoted. I'll probably edit it in after a bit but I've some puppet nations to attend to.
Last edited by Country of CityTowne on Fri May 24, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An effectively neutral person founded on effectively neutral philosophy. OOC
Tier 8, Level 0, Type 6. CCT is a 10.5 civilization, according to this index.
Economic Left/Right: 6.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.82
Economic Left/Right: 1.2
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.45

User avatar
Highever
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Dec 21, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highever » Fri May 24, 2019 4:34 pm

Country of CityTowne wrote:
The South Falls wrote:Let's remember, all, that the Catholic church is against contraception and abortion. It doesn't make sense.

And uh... "separation between church and state" or how I call it, "separation between religious bullcrap and state" appears to be a new concept for you.

Pretty sure you completely misread what they are saying.
ΦΣK
⚦ Through the souls of your brothers and sisters I take My place amongst the Three; through their pleasure I ascend my Throne. Pleasure, for Pleasure's sake! ⚦
Remember Bloody Sunday
A wise man once said, ("We all dead, fuck it")
There's something in the water
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.

User avatar
Country of CityTowne
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Corporate Police State

Postby Country of CityTowne » Fri May 24, 2019 4:37 pm

Ashanara wrote:the (unborn) baby (but still is alive) should have a right to live.

I dunno.

Fetuses aren't alive until they meet the requirements for life and has a chance of surviving outside of the womb. Until at least week 21, a fetus cannot be considered "alive," so you are not killing it by preforming an abortion. The fetus is being denied a chance at life.
An effectively neutral person founded on effectively neutral philosophy. OOC
Tier 8, Level 0, Type 6. CCT is a 10.5 civilization, according to this index.
Economic Left/Right: 6.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.82
Economic Left/Right: 1.2
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.45

User avatar
Country of CityTowne
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Corporate Police State

Postby Country of CityTowne » Fri May 24, 2019 4:37 pm

Highever wrote:
Country of CityTowne wrote:And uh... "separation between church and state" or how I call it, "separation between religious bullcrap and state" appears to be a new concept for you.

Pretty sure you completely misread what they are saying.


Eh, I probably did.
An effectively neutral person founded on effectively neutral philosophy. OOC
Tier 8, Level 0, Type 6. CCT is a 10.5 civilization, according to this index.
Economic Left/Right: 6.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.82
Economic Left/Right: 1.2
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.45

User avatar
Highever
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Dec 21, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highever » Fri May 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Country of CityTowne wrote:
Highever wrote:Pretty sure you completely misread what they are saying.


Eh, I probably did.

They're saying that it makes no sense that the Church is against both contraception amd abortion.
ΦΣK
⚦ Through the souls of your brothers and sisters I take My place amongst the Three; through their pleasure I ascend my Throne. Pleasure, for Pleasure's sake! ⚦
Remember Bloody Sunday
A wise man once said, ("We all dead, fuck it")
There's something in the water
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61118
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 24, 2019 4:40 pm

Country of CityTowne wrote:Fetuses aren't alive until they meet the requirements for life and has a chance of surviving outside of the womb.

What?
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Mettaton-EX
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 401
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Mettaton-EX » Fri May 24, 2019 4:44 pm

don't know if this article has been posted yet, but it contains a quote that is deeply revealing about the mindset of the people pushing these anti-abortion laws:

Chambliss, responding to the IVF argument from Smitherman, cites a part of the bill that says it applies to a pregnant woman. "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."


logically speaking, then, the """pro-life""" senate sponsor of the alabama bill would be perfectly fine with infanticide.
THIS ROBOT IS TRANS | AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT | هٰذه الآلة تقتل الفاشيين
(prefer it/its but any pronouns are acceptable)

User avatar
Mettaton-EX
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 401
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Mettaton-EX » Fri May 24, 2019 4:49 pm

Country of CityTowne wrote:
Ashanara wrote:the (unborn) baby (but still is alive) should have a right to live.

I dunno.

Fetuses aren't alive until they meet the requirements for life and has a chance of surviving outside of the womb. Until at least week 21, a fetus cannot be considered "alive," so you are not killing it by preforming an abortion. The fetus is being denied a chance at life.


sure it can be considered alive, and honestly, focusing the debate on this question is harmful.

fundamentally, it doesn't matter if an embryo/fetus is alive/a person/etc - even if it is, no person has the right to use another person's body without consent. there is literally no other situation besides pregnancy where such a right exists, regardless of whether the first person's life depends on it.
THIS ROBOT IS TRANS | AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT | هٰذه الآلة تقتل الفاشيين
(prefer it/its but any pronouns are acceptable)

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31183
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri May 24, 2019 8:54 pm

Ashanara wrote:I'm pretty torn on abortion.

On one hand a women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body and not go through months of torture being pregnant. On the other hand, the (unborn) baby (but still is alive) should have a right to live.

I dunno.

You have a right to your opinion but you should not force that opinion on others. Plus if we are going to use the term alive in the first few weeks of pregnancy the fetus is totally dependent on the mother so it techinlly doesn't meet the definition of alive. I am not sure when it is viable because im not a doctor.

I do think it should be a women's right to choose and is not anyone's decision but between a women and her doctor

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7788
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Fri May 24, 2019 9:10 pm

Mettaton-EX wrote:
Country of CityTowne wrote:Fetuses aren't alive until they meet the requirements for life and has a chance of surviving outside of the womb. Until at least week 21, a fetus cannot be considered "alive," so you are not killing it by preforming an abortion. The fetus is being denied a chance at life.


sure it can be considered alive, and honestly, focusing the debate on this question is harmful.

fundamentally, it doesn't matter if an embryo/fetus is alive/a person/etc - even if it is, no person has the right to use another person's body without consent. there is literally no other situation besides pregnancy where such a right exists, regardless of whether the first person's life depends on it.

I think the conversation should be framed primarily around whether the fetus is alive, and at which point it becomes alive. If it is not alive, there is no legal issue with terminating it, but if it is alive then it is murder as your are killing a living human. No person has the right to use another person's body without consent, but can a landlord kill their tenants if they don't pay rent? No one but the most vicious pro-lifers are against performing an abortion to save the mother's life.
Last edited by The Xenopolis Confederation on Fri May 24, 2019 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, LGBT+ Rights, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Non-Market-Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 0.5
Social: -8
I'm an 18 year old Australian who tries to think about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

I think I have gender dysphoria so I'd prefer you use she/her pronouns on me. If not, he/him'll do.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61118
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 24, 2019 9:12 pm

San Lumen wrote:Plus if we are going to use the term alive in the first few weeks of pregnancy the fetus is totally dependent on the mother so it techinlly doesn't meet the definition of alive.

Your biology teacher just screamed in frustration.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Necroghastia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1113
Founded: May 11, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Necroghastia » Fri May 24, 2019 9:13 pm

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Mettaton-EX wrote:
sure it can be considered alive, and honestly, focusing the debate on this question is harmful.

fundamentally, it doesn't matter if an embryo/fetus is alive/a person/etc - even if it is, no person has the right to use another person's body without consent. there is literally no other situation besides pregnancy where such a right exists, regardless of whether the first person's life depends on it.

I think the conversation should be framed primarily around whether the fetus is alive, and at which point it becomes alive. If it is not alive, there is no legal issue with terminating it, but if it is alive then it is murder as your are killing a living human. No person has the right to use another person's body without consent, but can a landlord kill their tenants if they don't pay rent? No one but the most vicious pro-lifers are against performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

That's a pretty big false equivalence you have there. Surely you think that it's okay for a landlord to evict tenants if they don't pay rent?
The Land of Spooky Scary Skeletons!

Pronouns: she/her

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7788
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Fri May 24, 2019 9:36 pm

Necroghastia wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I think the conversation should be framed primarily around whether the fetus is alive, and at which point it becomes alive. If it is not alive, there is no legal issue with terminating it, but if it is alive then it is murder as your are killing a living human. No person has the right to use another person's body without consent, but can a landlord kill their tenants if they don't pay rent? No one but the most vicious pro-lifers are against performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

That's a pretty big false equivalence you have there. Surely you think that it's okay for a landlord to evict tenants if they don't pay rent?

Not if eviction means death, no.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, LGBT+ Rights, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Non-Market-Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 0.5
Social: -8
I'm an 18 year old Australian who tries to think about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

I think I have gender dysphoria so I'd prefer you use she/her pronouns on me. If not, he/him'll do.

User avatar
The Caleshan Valkyrie
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Oct 07, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Caleshan Valkyrie » Sat May 25, 2019 5:44 am

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Mettaton-EX wrote:
sure it can be considered alive, and honestly, focusing the debate on this question is harmful.

fundamentally, it doesn't matter if an embryo/fetus is alive/a person/etc - even if it is, no person has the right to use another person's body without consent. there is literally no other situation besides pregnancy where such a right exists, regardless of whether the first person's life depends on it.

I think the conversation should be framed primarily around whether the fetus is alive, and at which point it becomes alive. If it is not alive, there is no legal issue with terminating it, but if it is alive then it is murder as your are killing a living human.


Killing another human being is not inherently murder. There are plenty of situations in which it is quite reasonably justified, such as when the other person is harming them in some way... maybe a violation of bodily integrity...

No person has the right to use another person's body without consent, but can a landlord kill their tenants if they don't pay rent?


They can boot them the hell out. With a woman’s body in question the matter becomes even more fundamental. It is quite simply unreasonable to require that she give up her bodily rights for any reason, as the fetus quite directly threatens the woman’s bodily integrity if she does not want it to remain.
Godulan Puppet #2, RPing as technologically advanced tribal society combined between several groups of ancient arabs and mongols with vikings.

Current Intro RP: Gravity Ships and Garden Snips

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19175
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Sat May 25, 2019 6:18 am

Galloism wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Plus if we are going to use the term alive in the first few weeks of pregnancy the fetus is totally dependent on the mother so it techinlly doesn't meet the definition of alive.

Your biology teacher just screamed in frustration.

Widen that to all science teachers in the entire world.



Apologies to other folks in this thread for not being too active on this thread as of late, currently very busy in Ukraine.
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 4970
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sat May 25, 2019 6:58 am

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Mettaton-EX wrote:
sure it can be considered alive, and honestly, focusing the debate on this question is harmful.

fundamentally, it doesn't matter if an embryo/fetus is alive/a person/etc - even if it is, no person has the right to use another person's body without consent. there is literally no other situation besides pregnancy where such a right exists, regardless of whether the first person's life depends on it.

I think the conversation should be framed primarily around whether the fetus is alive, and at which point it becomes alive. If it is not alive, there is no legal issue with terminating it, but if it is alive then it is murder as your are killing a living human. No person has the right to use another person's body without consent, but can a landlord kill their tenants if they don't pay rent? No one but the most vicious pro-lifers are against performing an abortion to save the mother's life.

For what its worth, a landlord can seek the use of force to evict tenants who don't pay rent.

Whether the fetus is alive or not is an interesting, but ultimately useless debate. The question of bodily sovereignty doesn't center on the life of another. If it did, mandatory organ donation, pre- or post-death, wouldn't be controversial. Its a balance of harms issue. To the extent that the fetus is a life worthy of protection, it's rights must be balanced against the societal interest in bodily sovereignty and reproductive choices.

Accepting, ad arguendo, that a fetus is alive and a person, it clearly has a high interest in survival.

Society has a high interest in allowing abortions. It reduces the aggregate cost of welfare by not pushing women into financial ruin by supporting a child they were not ready for.

The women have a high normative interest in control of their own futures, reproductively, economically, and ethically. They are better positioned socially and financially by choosing when to reproduce, and we have a strong normative interest in our society in favor of liberal treatment of our bodies. Which is why we allow tattoos and piercings even when they look terrible.

If life was always overriding over competing interests, we wouldn't pay for medical care or allow lethal self defense during home invasions, etc. So, there are more interests in favor of allowing abortion than banning it. Done and done.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2544
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jebslund » Sat May 25, 2019 8:02 am

Kernen wrote:Not actually the case. Working as a judicial law clerk, I got to see it first hand.

Specifics? Because you being a law clerk in, say, Smallville is different from you being a law clerk in DC, for example.

Kernen wrote:Gross oversimplification.

Not really. But I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

Kernen wrote:Except the political suicide and certain institutional loyalty to the preexisting structure that now exists.

:rofl:
Institutional loyalty ain't worth its weight in hard vacuum in today's US, and political suicide requires the public to both know and care. Most of the public don't care until it's them personally having their rights walked all over, and, at that point, it's too late, and, even then, politicians work hard to convince the public that giving up inconvenient (for the government) rights isFor the Greater GoodTM, or that it would only affect Bad PeopleTM. You'd be amazed how easily people can be convinced that certain rights are negotiable. Patriot Act, anyone?

Kernen wrote:Sure, you can reduce anything to "might makes right" but that doesn't mean it works like that in practice.

I mean, yes, actually, it *does* work like that. If the other branches don't want to abide by the Judicial's rulings, there's nothing making them.

Kernen wrote:The military cannot, and does not, ignore informed consent to do medical research. I cited my sources. Got any yourself?

You've cited fuck all, mate. It can, and does, ignore informed consent. On a regular basis. I'm an Air Force brat myself, which means I've been around people in the armed forces most of my life, and just about every one of them has mentioned some procedure or another they were told was mandatory but weren't given the details to.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 4970
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sat May 25, 2019 8:15 am

Jebslund wrote:Specifics? Because you being a law clerk in, say, Smallville is different from you being a law clerk in DC, for example.

Not really. Small municipalities get plenty of constitutional issues and big cases. As it stands, I worked in the capitol of my state. The details are, frankly, not something I'm willing or ethically allowed to share.
Kernen wrote:Gross oversimplification.

Not really. But I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

I'll try, but there is that great line about leading a horse to water.

Institutional loyalty ain't worth its weight in hard vacuum in today's US, and political suicide requires the public to both know and care. Most of the public don't care until it's them personally having their rights walked all over, and, at that point, it's too late, and, even then, politicians work hard to convince the public that giving up inconvenient (for the government) rights isFor the Greater GoodTM, or that it would only affect Bad PeopleTM. You'd be amazed how easily people can be convinced that certain rights are negotiable. Patriot Act, anyone?

The Patriot Act exploited unsettled privacy law aspects. Claiming that was negotiable violation of law is...well, untrue.

I mean, yes, actually, it *does* work like that. If the other branches don't want to abide by the Judicial's rulings, there's nothing making them.

Which is why it happens all the time, right? History shows that respect for the institutional powers in the U.S. government is exceedingly strong. To the point of deploying the National Guard to force desegregation in schools, for one example.

Sure, the government could simultaneously choose to ignore the judiciary. They could all agree to let Canada annex the US. Can =/= will. Its technically possible, but so unlikely as to be impossible.
Kernen wrote:The military cannot, and does not, ignore informed consent to do medical research. I cited my sources. Got any yourself?

You've cited fuck all, mate. It can, and does, ignore informed consent. On a regular basis. I'm an Air Force brat myself, which means I've been around people in the armed forces most of my life, and just about every one of them has mentioned some procedure or another they were told was mandatory but weren't given the details to.


I cited my sources when discussing the issue with Galloism. You're welcome to scroll up? I spent only about twenty minutes tooling around LexisNexis, but now that I'm not at work, I could probably do a deeper search. I've got access to all federal district and circuit cases plus SCOTUS. Would you care to cite cases that allow this practice? I'll happily Shepardize your selections.
Last edited by Kernen on Sat May 25, 2019 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61118
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Sat May 25, 2019 8:37 am

Kernen wrote:I cited my sources when discussing the issue with Galloism. You're welcome to scroll up? I spent only about twenty minutes tooling around LexisNexis, but now that I'm not at work, I could probably do a deeper search. I've got access to all federal district and circuit cases plus SCOTUS. Would you care to cite cases that allow this practice? I'll happily Shepardize your selections.

One of your sources explicitly gives exception to the military:

21 C.F.R. pt. 50

(d)(1) Under 10 U.S.C. 1107(f) the President may waive the prior consent requirement for the administration of an investigational new drug to a member of the armed forces in connection with the member's participation in a particular military operation. The statute specifies that only the President may waive informed consent in this connection and the President may grant such a waiver only if the President determines in writing that obtaining consent: Is not feasible; is contrary to the best interests of the military member; or is not in the interests of national security.


I will provide the rest by telegram so as not to threadjack into a discussion of bodily autonomy in an abortion debate (i'm still working on it, it's somewhat lengthy), but suffice to say, you didn't read your sources well or take into account surrounding context.
Last edited by Galloism on Sat May 25, 2019 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bluquse, Danceria, Dresderstan, Giovenith, Gormwood, Great Algerstonia, Grinning Dragon, Heloin, Imperial Valaran, Klorgia1, Loben The 2nd, Lower Nubia, Miami Shores, Necroghastia, New haven america, Outer Solar System, Outer Sparta, Rojava Free State, Shrillland, St Jax, Telconi, The Multiversal Species Alliance, Victorious Decepticons

Advertisement

Remove ads