«12. . .222223224225226227228. . .2,5112,512»
(Note: I'm sorry this post is so huge! It seems to happen to me a lot- I start writing a few sentences, and finish with a full-length essay.)
Have you learned anything from the debate we've had here? You can believe that unborn babies are fully human without believing that no pregnancy should ever be intentionally terminated, no matter what complications arise. Occasionally, a pregnancy goes very wrong, and the baby cannot be saved. In that case, it is absolutely acceptable (sometimes crucial) to remove the baby's body from the mother. Refusal to do so devalues the mother's life and shows that the pro-aborts are right about you- you do not care about anyone after they are born.
You have been told multiple times that it would be easier to get changes made if you became a citizen. Stop trying to change the region from the outside.
So it's okay if we allow citizens to support abortion in the cases of maternal health, rape, incest, and fetal defects, but it's not okay to state that those exceptions exist? What kind of logic is this?
For the (fourth? fifth?) time, I agree with you. But you will get nowhere when you demand immediate action on an issue that we have debated extensively beforehand, with good arguments for not changing anything. (Hard data supporting this conclusion was just reposted by CoL.)
Let me also say this. You are getting on my bad side. The debate you have stimulated here has been of enormous benefit to me, and I have greatly enjoyed it. Your passion for protecting the unborn is amazing. But you are very pigheaded.
You believe that an unborn baby should never be killed, period, and you refuse to work with anyone with less extreme views. I, Culture of Life, and probably others have given cases where the situation isn't as simple and convenient as the woman who kills her healthy unborn baby because she doesn't want them. You refuse to respond to this reasoning. I and others have also told you why it makes sense to ally with the more moderate pro-lifers, even if they hold views that we find hypocritical and disgusting. You discard this as well. The only point of view that you acknowledge as valid is that an unborn baby is to be valued above all other life, and people who think otherwise might as well stop calling themselves pro-life, since they think there might, possibly, be cases where it is okay (never preferable, but acceptable) to kill the baby. Your refusal to tolerate anyone that doesn't believe as you do is extremely tiresome and alienates an enormous number of people who otherwise would be happy to help end abortion.
I support legislation that just restricts abortion (after 20 weeks of pregnancy, say) instead of banning it completely, even though I do believe it should be banned (almost) completely, because some restriction is better than no restriction. Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I also support many people online that don't believe exactly as I do. But that doesn't matter, because we have allied because of what we do agree on. In this case, it would be cutting out 90% of abortion.
But that's not good enough for you. Nothing is, save for your exact view. And that's why I'm getting fed up with you. I now politely ask you to stop monopolizing the RMB with the same old talking points.
(Whoa, this became enormous. TL;DR- first and last paragraphs)
Aawia, Xinxian, and Horatius Cocles
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
How do you think it would go if I a Canadian citizen living in Wisconsin (I live in Canada but let's imagine for a moment for arguments sake) went and demanded the U.S. have a constitutional vote on an ammendment because I wanted something changed while I had still not even asked for citizenship?
Whoah! Wait a minute. I think you're forgetting that you're not the only person in the Life Party now. Other people, including myself, 
Phydios and Benland 1 have joined, and I think we should have a say on changing the party name. Personally I prefer Life Party, as it is more inclusive, and has a certain ring to it.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
That would need some work as under your own definition if we left in life of the mother we would no longer be pro-life. If an embryo is stuck in the fallopian tube in order to save the mother's life an abortion must be performed. The child is dead either way; but in this case to advocate the death of both for the continuation of a 100% abortion free stance would make us pro-death of the mother in this case. If you took out that clause I think you'd have a better shot; though naturally I will still oppose this due to the untinmely nature of this reccomendation and the potential backlash from the community weakening our position. Take my comments or leave them please do not continue to spam with this pointless debate (as clearly neither you nor I will budge)
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
My, my! All this activity!
Horatius Cocles and Ovybia
To redirect your attention to a sport competition that virtually no one ever follows, Tahiti defeated the Federated States of Micronesia yesterday by a score of 30-0 in the men's football tournament at the Pacific games with eight players scoring hat tricks. Vanuatu and Fiji played to a 1-1 draw, New Zealand beat Solomon Islands 2-0, and hosts Papua New Guinea lost to defending champions New Caledonia 1-0.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
I do.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
I'm not sure what time zone you guys are in, but here at my house, in the US, it's still July 3. (5:04 PM, to be precise.)
The Fourth of July celebrates the American Revolution. The Fourth of July is Independence Day. "Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory" (Wikipedia).
I think the ideal of a population exercising self-government is different from the ideal of a group of nine individuals telling 320 million people what their rights and duties are. What is most disturbing about the recent 5-to-4 same-sex marriage decision is the similarity of its language to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which upheld the "right to abortion" 5 to 4.
Casey (1992): "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Obergefell (2015): "Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs" (case citations omitted).
It's not coincidental that Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in both cases, 23 years apart. Justice Kennedy maintains that "[t]he identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty" (Obergefell, p. 10). The "fundamental rights" position, however, is undisciplined and unreasonable as it relies almost entirely on subjectivity and opinion. In the past week, many liberals have even come to recognize this reality.
The New Republic (July 1): "Anthony Kennedy's same-sex marriage opinion was a logical disaster."
Salon (July 2): "I have never run across anything like Kennedy's theory. He is, in short, a crank."
Hopefully, "fundamental rights" are gradually unraveling. Hopefully, American judges will return to the classical position: it's protected if it's in the Constitution, and it's voted on if it's not. Eventually, the United States might return to the revolutionary ideal of independence: the condition of a population exercising self-government. For me, that's what ought to be celebrated this Fourth of July holiday.
Thank you. Feel free to draft a section to add to Article 1 of our region's constitution, clarifying that the region does not endorse abortion in any cases while allowing its individual members to dissent in extreme circumstances.
The pacific territories, Distributist Republics, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and 2 othersStellonia, and Ovybia
Hey, guys! It's been a LONG time. How's everyone?
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Whoa...what are talking about now?
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Pretty good. How are you?
A debate that we were having a few days ago...
Pretty good. Tests are all done and summer has started. You?
What's the debate on?
I think you're misunderstanding a lot going on here. Our argument isn't that you're wrong; rather we were trying to demonstrate to you that there are legitimate circumstances in which someone can support abortions for those reasons. Such as my case, though you found some exceptions as far as I know the statistics show that without an abortion many more people will die than without. Your logic of that not being your fault but an abortion being your fault can apply and I definitely see where you're coming from (I'm more of a statistics man and I like keeping people alive, but I'm not 100% against your opinion). Our point is rather that in order to keep this region as prosperous as possible the way things are happen to be best until abortions become banned everywhere, in which case this debate gains more traction and I most likely would fall on a side way closer to you. My other grain of cynicism comes from that we've had hundreds of members who have agreed with you (like myself in most cases you talk about) yet agree to our terms for the sake of the cause. I appreciate your passion and I hope you can use your passion to bring more to our cause.
That being said I have surgery in a week and my nurses have asked me to keep things calm, which lately hasn't been my experience on NS. So I'll be taking the next two weeks off (post surgery my risk of a hernia is increased and I need to be CAREFUL). I may slip up but if you see me on, chew me out so I leave. I have been sick a lot lately so I apologize about the newsletters bear with me hopefully I'll be down to earth enough to write a little bit post-surgery.
Also if this does go to a vote can someone please check the opinion of embassy regions on this? I think because of our position to unify ALL pro-life players on NS and not just this region they should have a say. Also because they strengthen our voice and give us good inroads to making our cause known and teaching the facts to people so they hopefully might come around.
Well I guess this is good-bye until I'm better. I'll ask my mom to inform you should the unlikely happen and I die (I've ask her to update numerous groups should I die; I did the same thing last year when I was getting my heart procedure done). That being said the likelihood of that is slim.
Would something like this work for you?
"The third section of this article shall not be construed as a regional endorsement of legalized abortion in any particular case. The guiding mission of the right to life movement is the abolition of abortion on request and its underlying causes, especially abortions performed merely or primarily for social or economic reasons."
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
We never said you were wrong. You didn't have to convince anyone that unborn babies were fully human. The problem was the way you were arguing; you refused to accept any viewpoint besides your own. When you accepted that some people might support the permission of abortion in a few rare cases and became much less aggressive in your speech, you got much more positive results. :)
«12. . .222223224225226227228. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement
