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.
90
34%
Set conditions under which abortions can be accessed.
57
22%
Allow free access, under a given time limit.
20
8%
Allow free access, but give men an option to excuse themselves from child support.
26
10%
HELL WITH COMPROMISE, IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
52
20%
Look out! They're here! Pink Elephants on Parade! Here they come, hippity hoppity!
18
7%
 
Total votes : 263

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:20 am

Neutraligon wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

Provide evidence that natural law exists, and then provide evidence that what you claim to be part of it is actually part of it.

What sort of evidence would you accept?
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:22 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Not at it's best, specifically. Independent of state authority these things are wrong and not conducive to the good of humanity.

You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd. :roll:

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:24 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd. :roll:

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.
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
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:24 am

Sundiata wrote:A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her...


Evidence that this is true?

Another of your 'moral' arguments, I see. Any danger you're actually going to back it up this time?
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Neuer California
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:28 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd. :roll:

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Of course what human nature at its "best" looks like is inherently extremely subjective. I, for one, strongly suspect I would disagree with your interpretation of "best."

Also, we don't just deal with human nature at its "best" in the real world. We deal with the entire spectrum of human behavior, so legislating or even just advocating based on humanity at its "best" doesn't really work.
Puppet of Neu California. I wanted a fresh start on my nation.
And yes, that is two girls kissing in my flag. I am strongly pro-LGBT and a big fan of yuri stuff, so...
Pro: gun control, LGBT rights, taxing the rich heavily, welfare, UBI, universal healthcare, corporate regulations
Anti: bullying, gun bans, unlimited gun rights, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, Trump, excessive corporate power
34 year old agnostic writer of smut free lesbian speculative fiction. Aspergers, social anxiety, and yet not a giant raging dick
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:33 am

Godular wrote:
Sundiata wrote:What do you mean? Why would you approve of rape? Neither rape or anyone's killing is ideal.


I simply extended your logic to a 'natural' conclusion, in order to point out how absolutely bullshit your logic is. A woman should very much be able to defend herself with deadly force, and that does not change even remotely between born persons and not-born.

Your position is internally inconsistent and frankly outright horrifying.

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances (of which, rape is not). However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:36 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Neuer California
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:38 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

And based on what authority? And who defines it?
Puppet of Neu California. I wanted a fresh start on my nation.
And yes, that is two girls kissing in my flag. I am strongly pro-LGBT and a big fan of yuri stuff, so...
Pro: gun control, LGBT rights, taxing the rich heavily, welfare, UBI, universal healthcare, corporate regulations
Anti: bullying, gun bans, unlimited gun rights, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, Trump, excessive corporate power
34 year old agnostic writer of smut free lesbian speculative fiction. Aspergers, social anxiety, and yet not a giant raging dick
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:41 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

Sundiata wrote:I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

And the intent in abortion isn't killing as such, it's the removal of the fetus.

Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?
Last edited by The New California Republic on Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:43 am

Neuer California wrote:
Sundiata wrote:No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

And based on what authority? And who defines it?

The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:46 am

The New California Republic wrote:Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

I didn't do anything more than define what was established before. That is what Lex Naturalis is by definition. Qualifying element in what way?
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Neuer California
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:47 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:And based on what authority? And who defines it?

The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.

Because humans are always driven by reason :roll:

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?
Puppet of Neu California. I wanted a fresh start on my nation.
And yes, that is two girls kissing in my flag. I am strongly pro-LGBT and a big fan of yuri stuff, so...
Pro: gun control, LGBT rights, taxing the rich heavily, welfare, UBI, universal healthcare, corporate regulations
Anti: bullying, gun bans, unlimited gun rights, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, Trump, excessive corporate power
34 year old agnostic writer of smut free lesbian speculative fiction. Aspergers, social anxiety, and yet not a giant raging dick
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:49 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

I didn't do anything more than define what was established before. That is what Lex Naturalis is by definition. Qualifying element in what way?

Sorry but I'm not going to handhold you through explaining your goalpost shifting. If it's taking this long to explain it to you then the meaning has already been lost.
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: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:49 am

The New California Republic wrote:Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?

A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:51 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?

A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...
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: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:53 am

Neuer California wrote:
Sundiata wrote:The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.

Because humans are always driven by reason :roll:

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?
The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14536
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:54 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
No he does not.
Anyone who has made love knows a woman has a responsibility for herself

He absolutely does and these responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.


> has made love
> The women like to take care of themselves

So no. You are trying to apply a sexist tone to it.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:55 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Neuer California
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:55 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason :roll:

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?
The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Let me know when we figure out what this ultimate reason concludes. Also, opinions, feelings, and beliefs will always drive policy and decision making to some extent. Humans are not completely rational creatures, far from it.
Puppet of Neu California. I wanted a fresh start on my nation.
And yes, that is two girls kissing in my flag. I am strongly pro-LGBT and a big fan of yuri stuff, so...
Pro: gun control, LGBT rights, taxing the rich heavily, welfare, UBI, universal healthcare, corporate regulations
Anti: bullying, gun bans, unlimited gun rights, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, Trump, excessive corporate power
34 year old agnostic writer of smut free lesbian speculative fiction. Aspergers, social anxiety, and yet not a giant raging dick
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:56 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason :roll:

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?
The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Is it possible to speak nonsense objectively? This statement for instance, that you are calling "objective", is nonsensical.
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
Neuer California
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:57 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.


Then you should have worded this post better:

Sundiata wrote:
Godular wrote:
I simply extended your logic to a 'natural' conclusion, in order to point out how absolutely bullshit your logic is. A woman should very much be able to defend herself with deadly force, and that does not change even remotely between born persons and not-born.

Your position is internally inconsistent and frankly outright horrifying.

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.
Puppet of Neu California. I wanted a fresh start on my nation.
And yes, that is two girls kissing in my flag. I am strongly pro-LGBT and a big fan of yuri stuff, so...
Pro: gun control, LGBT rights, taxing the rich heavily, welfare, UBI, universal healthcare, corporate regulations
Anti: bullying, gun bans, unlimited gun rights, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, Trump, excessive corporate power
34 year old agnostic writer of smut free lesbian speculative fiction. Aspergers, social anxiety, and yet not a giant raging dick
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14536
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:57 am

-Eemoved, didn't read things properly-
Last edited by Celritannia on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35382
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:58 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

So...you are talking about a hypothetical rape devoid of violence? Just what exactly are you saying here? We were talking about rape, and now you are talking about rape as a neutral situation...?
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
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11140
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:58 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason :roll:

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?
The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.


Please objectively derive the natural law that says abortion is wrong. I'd love to see what you think that logic chain is.
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
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:59 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote: The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Is it possible to speak nonsense objectively? This statement for instance, that you are calling "objective", is nonsensical.

What do you or do you not understand?
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artevenia, Chrysanthemum State, Corrian, European North Americans, Google [Bot], Hyx, Kanaia, Majestic-12 [Bot], Old Tyrannia, SherpDaWerp, Shrillland, Spode humbLed minions, The Lone Alliance, Varchona, Wadrain

Advertisement

Remove ads