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.
89
35%
Set conditions under which abortions can be accessed.
56
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!
48
19%
Look out! They're here! Pink Elephants on Parade! Here they come, hippity hoppity!
18
7%
 
Total votes : 257

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 5:01 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote: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?

Others seem to have the same concerns as me. A more pressing question is this one.
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 5:03 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote: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...?

No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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 5:08 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote: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...?

No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.

Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

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.
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 5:09 am

If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me 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
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 152137
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:12 am

These are the knots one must tie oneself in to argue that it is morally correct to force people to remain pregnant against their wishes.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Regular Thorough Handwashing For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Mask Wearing That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Social Distancing

no war but class war
He/Him

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

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:14 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.

Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

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.
In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:14 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 5:19 am

Neuer California wrote:If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me wrong

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of this discussion about humanity.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
The Caleshan Valkyrie
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1353
Founded: Oct 07, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:19 am

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.


You are wrong. According to natural law, you are wrong.

Any non consensual violation of a person’s bodily integrity is wrong, and no amount of special pleading on your part will change that. You need to understand that a woman experiencing an unwanted pregnancy can and likely will feel like they are threatened in a great many ways similar to being raped, and though they may not blame or hold it against the fetus they are (and very much should be) permitted to remedy this. To do otherwise is to be utterly devoid of any semblance of empathy for those who are actually capable of feeling anything.

But then, it must feel easier to empathize with the fetus, as it’s easier to ascribe your own desires on an entity devoid of any agency.
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)

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 5:21 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.
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 5:23 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me wrong

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch
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 5:27 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11139
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:35 am

Neuer California wrote:
Sundiata wrote:It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch


I mean there are more than a couple societies that don't view rape as morally wrong, especially under specific circumstances. The most obvious example I can think of is forced marriage and marital rape. A women has little or no power to choose who she is marrying and once in marriage has no ability to say no to their husband. While I, and I suspect many here, view that as morally wrong, there are many cultures, past and present, that don't.
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
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14530
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:38 am

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.


Rape is violent, to say it isn't is idiotic.

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 5:44 am

Neuer California wrote:
Sundiata wrote:It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14530
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:45 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.


Yes they do. It's documented.

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
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11139
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:45 am

Sundiata wrote:
Neuer California wrote:Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.


Where do you get that from?

Rape, sex without consent of one party, definitely happens in the animal kingdom.
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 5:47 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Non-human animals can't rape one another.


Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11139
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:49 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.

Ahh, so you're defining rape so that rape in the animal kingdom isn't rape. Nice circular logic.
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
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14530
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:49 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.


This is such idiotic reasoning.

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 5:51 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.


Rape is violent, to say it isn't is idiotic.

I agree; I consistently have.
"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 5:52 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.


This is such idiotic reasoning.

Okay.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14530
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:56 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
This is such idiotic reasoning.

Okay.


Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

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 5:58 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Okay.


Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.
Last edited by Sundiata on Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14530
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:59 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape involves a human being.


Science disagrees. Which is why your comment is idiotic.
Last edited by Celritannia on Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:00 am, edited 2 times 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
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:02 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape involves a human being.


Science disagrees.which is why your comment is idiotic.

That is not the scientific concensus.
"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: Gujsbo, Ifreann, Isaiah Berlin Alexanderplatz, The Holy Therns, The Kingdom Of The Three Isles

Advertisement

Remove ads