NATION

PASSWORD

[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

What would you consider to be the best 'compromise'?

Reduce abortions with welfare supports / other non-invasive measures, leave access untouched.
132
33%
Set conditions under which abortions can be accessed.
83
21%
Allow free access, under a given time limit.
38
9%
Allow free access, but give men an option to excuse themselves from child support.
40
10%
HELL WITH COMPROMISE, IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
86
21%
Look out! They're here! Pink Elephants on Parade! Here they come, hippity hoppity!
22
5%
 
Total votes : 401

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74591
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:33 am

Thermodolia wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Banning abortion after six weeks means you’ve outlawed it. Most women don’t know that are pregnant at six weeks.

It’s a technicality but yes. They, meaning the court, wants to undermine Roe not overturn it.


And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73316
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thermodolia » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:35 am

San Lumen wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:It’s a technicality but yes. They, meaning the court, wants to undermine Roe not overturn it.


And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

Not really. Because they can claim that Roe isn’t overturned that Roe is still protected. That you can abort out of state and whatever.

Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would do enough to keep the democrats from scoring a PR victory
Male, State Socialist, Cultural Nationalist, Welfare Chauvinist lives somewhere in AZ I'm GAY! Disabled US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74591
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:36 am

Thermodolia wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.

Not really. Because they can claim that Roe isn’t overturned that Roe is still protected. That you can abort out of state and whatever.

Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would do enough to keep the democrats from scoring a PR victory


How would they not score a PR victory? It could easily be spun as overturning it and placing an undue burden. Many would see it that way.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Genivaria » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:45 am

Vassenor wrote:
Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it. 8)

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.


So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

So far noone has been able to, the anti-choice side of the issue simply has no leg to stand on.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25090
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:12 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

So far noone has been able to, the anti-choice side of the issue simply has no leg to stand on.

That is untrue - one person argued that there is a special obligation between mother and child that does not exist amongst others.
Which is something I disagree with; but at least they had an answer.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35392
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:20 pm

Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Esternial
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 53914
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:41 pm

Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

So you're endorsing child labor and marriage, considering the rights to marriage and work?
Last edited by Esternial on Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Godular
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11791
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Godular » Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:58 pm

Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?


The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to this concern as you are seeking to give the fetus rights beyond those of born persons. You seek to allow the fetus to use another person's body and resources for its own ends, whether the owner of that other body consents to the arrangement or not. Either you seek to treat the fetus as more-than-human right up until it passes through the birth canal, or you seek to treat the woman as less.

It is you who dehumanizes, one way or the other.
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX
Dormant RP: Throne of the Fallen Empire

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- An enormously advanced collective of formerly human bioborgs that are vastly experienced in both inter-dimensional travel and asymmetrical warfare.
A 1.08 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie
I don't normally use NS stats. But when I do, I prefer Dos Eckis I can STILL kill you.
Post responsibly.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Minister
 
Posts: 2436
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Thepeopl » Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:01 pm

Temple State wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.


Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it. 8)

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

Emphasis mine.
So, you support pregnant women when they learn they are pregnant? You'll give them money and housing, free health care because human life in the womb "should be favoured ". They get free healthy food, birthing and parenting classes. And daddies too. They receive the same benefits and time to bond with the unborn. Great! Because if you do that, you'll see abortion rates going down.

Sadly I must conclude that no state whatsoever does favour the unborn. Nor born children.

Until they do, let's keep safe abortions easily accessible and proper sex education with free contraceptives given to children/ young adults.

User avatar
Betoni
Diplomat
 
Posts: 929
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Betoni » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:06 pm

The New California Republic wrote:
Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.


Banning abortion isn't the same as giving rights to a fetus. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity. So the question is not about the fetuse's rights vs the mothers. It's about the mothers rights period. Plenty of jurisdictions have and do restrict persons right to bodily autonomy, as in very late abortions etc. So it's clearly not inconceivable that a law would do so. IMO, it's as stupid to argue about the fetuse's non-existent rights as it is to compare the early forms of ones offspring to a parasite or a fully developed and born legal person. It comes down to weather you think the mother has the right to abort their pregnancy and at what stage does that right end. Simple as.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35392
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:53 pm

Betoni wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.

Banning abortion isn't the same as giving rights to a fetus.

It is, it's de facto giving the fetus the right to use the body of another against their will. That's a right that no other person has.

Betoni wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity.

Given the pro-life crowd very frequently want the fetus to be considered a person, the question of it being a legal entity in this context is very pertinent, hence why we need to speak in terms like this.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9711
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:57 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Sundiata wrote:I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.


This wasn't true the last time you said it, either.

It's been true since the first.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9711
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:59 pm

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Elwher
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6109
Founded: May 24, 2012
Anarchy

Postby Elwher » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:05 pm

There are at least three separate discussions going on here, not counting the various offshoots that always crop up.

First, is abortion something that should be unregulated, controlled (and if so, when), or banned?

Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

Third, should Roe be the law of the land?

The first hinges too much on morality or personhood to ever be settled by discussion, only laws will do so and they will leave some people unhappy with the result as their deeply held beliefs will be compromised by whatever the law is.

The second is dependant on one's position on the first; for the most part, the anti-abortion folk like it because it works and the pro-abortion folk do not like it because it works.

The third is the only one I have a strong opinion on. I do not think Roe was correctly decided, and my opinion on abortion does not enter into my reasoning. All other medical procedures are set by state legislatures or state boards of health. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like any other even if it is more controversial. It should, therefore, be the duty of the several states to regulate it, not the Federal government. Roe was Federal overreach and the occasionally proposed Federal ban on abortions would be equally invalid.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35392
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:09 pm

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.

Since you aren't an atheist it's impossible to know that for sure, since at the moment your fundamental framework for being against abortion is religious, and thus you will also be trapped in that framework even when trying to think what it'd be like looking at it from the other side.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35392
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:12 pm

Elwher wrote:Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

...but it's not avoiding a SCOTUS review at all, as it is getting looked at next month...
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Esternial
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 53914
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:16 pm

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

No, no. I'd think it should be illegal even if I were an atheist for practical reasons.

Hard to tell. Your moral perspective is in part influenced by your religious views. Lacking those...ball could roll any direction. My catholic upbringing has also given me certain morals and ideals I may otherwise not have or I might prioritize them differently.
Last edited by Esternial on Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Isles of Eamhna
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: May 07, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Isles of Eamhna » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:26 pm

Betoni wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity. So the question is not about the fetuse's rights vs the mothers. It's about the mothers rights period.

this is correct imo
Isles of EamhnaAoidhe Eamhna
Eamhna is pronounced Ave-ruh, as though you've been punched in the stomach while saying Avril Lavigne
Naoimn Eaimhnidhtthe Emnian Phrasebook

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11496
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:01 pm

Elwher wrote:There are at least three separate discussions going on here, not counting the various offshoots that always crop up.

First, is abortion something that should be unregulated, controlled (and if so, when), or banned?

Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?

Third, should Roe be the law of the land?

The first hinges too much on morality or personhood to ever be settled by discussion, only laws will do so and they will leave some people unhappy with the result as their deeply held beliefs will be compromised by whatever the law is.


Laws come from discussions, so yeah we should discuss it. That said, the answerer to a morality question for the law is easy, don't enforce one persons morality on another. Simply put if you think abortions are immoral, don't get one. But making abortion illegal means that someone who thinks abortions are moral can't get one. Since an abortion doesn't harm you, you shouldn't get to tell people if they can do it or not.

The second is dependant on one's position on the first; for the most part, the anti-abortion folk like it because it works and the pro-abortion folk do not like it because it works.


I mean I would hope anti abortion folk care about the rule of law and not making contrived laws designed specifically to go around the rule of law. But as evidenced by this thread some people care more about winning their moral victory than about maintaining the rule of law that allows them to have their moral victory.

The third is the only one I have a strong opinion on. I do not think Roe was correctly decided, and my opinion on abortion does not enter into my reasoning. All other medical procedures are set by state legislatures or state boards of health. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like any other even if it is more controversial. It should, therefore, be the duty of the several states to regulate it, not the Federal government. Roe was Federal overreach and the occasionally proposed Federal ban on abortions would be equally invalid.


Abortion is how a person handles their private body, the state has no business interfering with how a person handles their private body. The 14th Amendment means that the constitutional protections that apply to the federal government also apply to the states. The federal government didn't overreach, the courts said states can't violate peoples constitutional rights.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 35540
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Katganistan » Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:54 pm

Sundiata wrote:

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

Yes, yes, we all know that The Handmaiden's Tale is a dream come true for men who can't WAIT to control women.

It's a dystopian novel, in case you were unaware.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:
The Kingdom Of The Three Isles wrote:Indeed. I agree religion was always, and will always be a decisive and even bloody topic.

For the record I don't think religion is bad in itself; like almost everything it is fine unless it's harming people.


And forced pregnancies harm people.
Sundiata wrote:
Thepeopl wrote:That's what you claim.
Priests who are celibate and don't physically procreate have fruitful lives.
Sterile made fathers are sinning because voluntary stopping physical procreation.

I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.

Really?

I thought the purpose of our lives, according to the Bible, was worshiping God? And that marriage was, in fact, a distraction from this purpose. And that celibacy was, in fact, the preferred state so as to carry on this purpose....
Sundiata wrote:
Esternial wrote:What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?

What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?

So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.

Just lie back and die, Esternial. It's immoral to kill your murderer/rapist in self-defense.
Last edited by Katganistan on Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Kingdom of the Three Isles
Diplomat
 
Posts: 718
Founded: Jun 01, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:10 pm

Thepeopl wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.


Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles


So if you follow only old testament, disabled ppl aren't submitted to heaven. Aren't allowed to worship.

Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off


Jesus contradicts this in new testament.

I agree. If you are a Christian, you would mainly follow New Testament teachings, as Jesus is the centre of the religion. The Old Testament only speaks of a Messiah, not exactly Jesus’ teachings.
Gender: Male
Religion: Christianity
Political Compass: LibRight
Moral Alignment: Neutral Good
No, this is not the Iron Cross, and no I ain’t a N@zi.
IC name is The Three Isles
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.

User avatar
The Kingdom of the Three Isles
Diplomat
 
Posts: 718
Founded: Jun 01, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:12 pm

Katganistan wrote:
Sundiata wrote:I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.

Really?

I thought the purpose of our lives, according to the Bible, was worshiping God? And that marriage was, in fact, a distraction from this purpose. And that celibacy was, in fact, the preferred state so as to carry on this purpose....

Never heard truer words. The Church’s biggest mistake was trying to intervene in marriage. Should’ve just focused on worship.
Gender: Male
Religion: Christianity
Political Compass: LibRight
Moral Alignment: Neutral Good
No, this is not the Iron Cross, and no I ain’t a N@zi.
IC name is The Three Isles
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 35540
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Katganistan » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:12 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it. 8)

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.


So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.


My liver is begging for mercy.

User avatar
The Kingdom of the Three Isles
Diplomat
 
Posts: 718
Founded: Jun 01, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:18 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it. 8)

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.


So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.
Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

Drink? I’ll have a Scotch please.
Last edited by The Kingdom of the Three Isles on Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Christianity
Political Compass: LibRight
Moral Alignment: Neutral Good
No, this is not the Iron Cross, and no I ain’t a N@zi.
IC name is The Three Isles
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.

User avatar
The Caleshan Valkyrie
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1408
Founded: Oct 07, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:19 pm

Katganistan wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.


My liver is begging for mercy.


Non-Alcoholic Strawberry Daquiris are available for those with beleaguered livers… like mine.
Godulan Puppet #2, RPing as technologically advanced tribal society founded by mongols and vikings (and later with multiple other Asian and Native American cultures) motivated by an intrinsic devotion to the spirit of competition. They'll walk softly, talk softly, and make soothing noises as they stab you in the back and take your stuff... unless you're another Caleshan, whereupon they'll only stab you in the back figuratively!

Used NS stats: Population. That’s it. Anything else not stated in the factbooks is not used.

Intro RP: Gravity Ships and Garden Snips (involved tribes: Plainsrider, Hawkeye, Wavecrasher)
Current RP: A Rock Out of Place (involved tribes: Night Wolf, Deep Kraken, Starwalker)
Current RP (but in the past): Acrimony of Brothers (involved tribe: Deep Kraken)

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aragom with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Google [Bot], Srpska of bosnia-herzegovina, Tillania

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron