by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Theocracy of Aawia (elected )

Founder: The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

Most Nations: 136th Most World Assembly Endorsements: 453rd Most Devout: 730th+3
Most Valuable International Artwork: 1,385th Largest Black Market: 2,136th Most Cultured: 2,254th
World Factbook Entry

RIGHT TO LIFE is a community of nations that recognizes and promotes defense of the unalienable rights of the unborn. The nations of this region oppose induced abortion in all or most cases.

World Assembly members are required to endorse the President: Aawia.



  1. 1

    Region of Right to Life

    MetaReference by Culture of Life . 2,402 reads.

  2. 1

    A Statement on Right to Life / League of Conservative Nations Relations

    BulletinPolicy by United massachusetts . 501 reads.

  3. 1

    Charter of International Alliance for the Preborn

    BulletinOpinion by United massachusetts . 1,127 reads.

  4. 1

    Official map of Right to Life

    FactbookGeography by Under ledzia . 368 reads.

▼ 1 More

Embassies: Pro Life International, Catholic, Coalition of Catholic States, Republic of Conservative Nations, United Empire of Islam, The Allied States, Antarctic Oasis, Federation of Conservative Nations, Conservative League, Libertatem, The Universal Allegiance, Arda en Estel, Grand Central, The Western Isles, League of Christian Nations, The Great American Union, and 149 others.Israel, Vatican II, Eastern Roman Empire, The Allied Republics, Virtual Roman Catholic Church, Saint Margaret Mary, Vatican, Jerusalem, Alabama, Concordia, Republicans, The SOP, Freedom and Justice Alliance, Christianity, Union of Nationalists, The Republic Nations, Ivory Tower, The Illuminati, United States of America, The Royal Imperial Directorate, Truangel Christian Fellowship, The Virtual Roman Catholic Church, The Catholic Church, Arconian Empire, Hollow Point, The Savage Garden, Avadam Inn, Galactic Imperium, United Poland Union, Zentari, ACA, U R N, Australialia, Time for Britain 2 Leave the EU, Paradise, Donald Trump, Solar Alliance, The Doctor Who Universe, United Imperial Union, Oceania, Holy Lands, Groland, Brasil, The Christian Communist Union, Chile, Imperial Russian Empire, Yarnia, The Unified Christians Alliance, Brazzaville, Asylum, The Bar on the corner of every region, Historia Novorum, Chinese Republic, Massachusetts, France, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region, Scandinavia, Gay Equality, Solid Kingdom, The Geometric Equanimity TGE, Philosophy 115, Australia, The Rose Garden, North Carolina, Polandball, The Graveyard, Armenia, Illinois, Thanksgiving, Autism Spectrum, Donald Trump Land, Nohbdy, Future Earth, Sweden, Knights of The Templar Order, KAISERREICH, Union of Free Nations, Regionless, The Free States, Bus Stop, Imperium of the Wolf, Union Mundial, International Debating Area, Alliance of Absolute Monarchs, LCRUA, The Great Universe, Remnants of Hyrule, Etharia, United Alliances, The Three Kings, The Union of Religious Nations, Conaidhm na Cairde, Limbo, 1st Lutheran Christian Community, Octobris, The LCRUA, Gypsy Lands, The North Atlantic Ocean, The Alterran Republic, International sovereignty pact, Novo Brasil, Union of Allied States, Elparia, Brannackia, RHINIA, The Dawn of Unity, Yuno, Universal Pact, Japan, Union of Christian Nations, Kingdom Of Austria, Christian Nations Union, Union of Saxon Justice, Roman Byzantine Union, The Moderate Alliance, MentosLand, Federation of Allies, Northern Ocean, Conservicstan, nasunia, American Jewish Committee, The International Polling Zone, Vermont, The House of Prayer, Dolla Holla, Valkia, The Labyrinth, Albosiac, Altay, United Christian Empires of the West, New Waldensia, The putnan empire of nations, Allied Conservative States, Turkic Union, Christian, Southern Africa, Syria, United League of Nations, RAMS, Old Zealand, Markish Galactic Empire, Pecan Sandies, Bible Believers, Unitanda, The Mainland of Tamriel, Royal Federal Republic of Free States, Cambrian United Legacy, ThunderClan, and Jafazia.

Tags: Conservative, Democratic, Egalitarian, Enormous, Featured, General Assembly, Generalite, Independent, Issues Player, Map, Offsite Chat, Offsite Forums, and 4 others.Regional Government, Serious, Social, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Right to Life contains 154 nations, the 136th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Highest Crime Rates in Right to Life

World Census interns were dispatched to seedy back alleys in order to determine which nations have the highest crime rates.

As a region, Right to Life is ranked 11,945th in the world for Highest Crime Rates.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Dixieland Empire of The Rouge Christmas StateNew York Times Democracy“Facts don't care about your feelings.”
2.The Armed Christian States of Confederacy RepublicInoffensive Centrist Democracy“United under God”
3.The Armed Republic of Noof ConfederationCapitalist Paradise“Non sibi sed patriae”
4.The Federation of RoborianNew York Times Democracy“Wir sind die Überwältigende!”
5.The Armed Republic of The Big FreedomAnarchy“Motto...”
6.The Republic of PoloiAnarchy“For god, for country”
7.The Confederacy of East BoofistanCorporate Bordello“Non sibi sed patriae”
8.The Confederacy of SnellandCapitalist Paradise“2Balkan4You”
9.The Empire of VellanoriaAnarchy“We Will Endure”
10.The Federal Republic of Christian CountiesCorporate Bordello“To the stars through difficulty”
1234. . .1516»

Regional Happenings

More...

Right to Life Regional Message Board

Ecclestia wrote:I see the world in a more nuanced way. People and the church are complex even if we wish it were simple. The wider you cast your net, the more capacity you have to share God’s love. We don’t need to agree, we just need to respect one another and I respect you and everyone in this region!

To a certain extent this is a devil's advocate argument, since I agree with your general position of respecting contradicting views, but one could say that there is something wrong with promoting universal respect when debating among adults, when the issue being discussed is over whether the barest modicum of respect, enough respect to simply not allow one to be legally killed, is granted to children.

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:I don’t understand. How would the democrats for example just suddenly be pro-life when it’s so deeply ingrained in our party lines, if you will, that democrats vote one way and republicans vote another?

That's the thing. I don't think abortion is a deeply ingrained partisan issue.

If you look at recent Gallup polls, about one-fourth of Democrats identify as "pro-life," and about one-fourth of Republicans identify as "pro-choice." If you go back to 1998, Democrats were split 52% "pro-choice" and 42% "pro-life," and Republicans were split 54% "pro-life" and 40% "pro-choice."

With abortion going back to the states, the national parties might have a political incentive to back off the abortion issue. To be more competitive, Democrats in Pennsylvania or Ohio, for example, might want to stop being the "pro-choice party" and start being the "blue-collar party" again. Republicans in New England, on the other hand, might want to stop being the "pro-life party" and start being the "anti-tax party" again.

In the not too distant past -- recent enough for the curmudgeons who lead the major parties to remember -- the Democrats were competitive in states such as Missouri, and the Republicans were competitive in states such as Oregon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Missouri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon

If they want those states to be competitive again, they might well offload the abortion issue onto the state parties. That's what they did before Roe, and they could start doing it again (or they might not for the reasons we've been discussing).

Roborian wrote:My fear would be that it ends up being like gun control, but I disagree with the way that you see that issue. Republicans never making anything happen at the national level is certainly true, recency bias at play, we are not long at all removed from Democrats instituting a nationwide 'assault weapons' ban, that fortunately sunsetted, and nationwide NICS checks, unfortunately still in place, and we are less than a decade removed from a floor vote to put in expanded versions of both (one failing only via filibuster). The GOP could not even get a vote on a partial silencer de-regulation with control of both chambers.

The "assault weapons" ban became law only because seven Republican senators voted for it.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1032/vote_103_2_00295.htm

I don't foresee a scenario, at least not in the near future, where seven Republican senators vote for abortion on demand.

Roborian wrote:On abortion, we just saw Democrats go for a near-maximalist bill 'Women's Health Protection Act', which would 'overturn' Roe itself to require more abortion, up to nine months with a broad exemption, repealing state laws up to and including banning sex-selective abortions, and they both got all but one of their members on board, and managed to have the branding game utterly falsely claim that it just codified Roe. I doubt Republicans could put together anything so coordinated or unanimous, but I fully expect Democrats to attempt to push such a bill repeatedly, though (hopefully) they will have no more success with such votes than they have with pushing gun votes recently.

I know that the standard procedure is for supporters of either side to think that the reason they lose is that their side does not wield power, and the other side does, but I think there is pretty good evidence to build the assumption that Democrats in Congress would likely be much more aggressive than Republicans in a post-Roe world, though if the filibuster survives, which I tend to think it will, probably not particularly successful from that aggression.

I think the filibuster is important. Right now, the only real national abortion policies we have are: (1) the Medicaid program funds abortions in cases of maternal life, rape, and incest, and (2) federal law criminalizes partial-birth abortions. Outside those two policies, I don't envision much change on national abortion laws. Although, I do expect that some (or most) Democrats will try to smuggle in taxpayer-funded abortions as a spending item under the budget reconciliation process.

Culture of Life wrote:

The "assault weapons" ban became law only because seven Republican senators voted for it.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1032/vote_103_2_00295.htm

I don't foresee a scenario, at least not in the near future, where seven Republican senators vote for abortion on demand.

To be fair, some of those Republicans voting yes were from states like Rhode Island, Delaware, and Vermont (and Maine) I would call this more a matter of the kind of sorting and abolition of the middle that has taken place since then than anything else (Collins, the only GOPer in New England, is pushing an actual codification of Roe, the "Reproductive Choice Act", though she has not yet gone all the way into the Democrat nine-month abortion bill).

Culture of Life wrote:

I think the filibuster is important. Right now, the only real national abortion policies we have are: (1) the Medicaid program funds abortions in cases of maternal life, rape, and incest, and (2) federal law criminalizes partial-birth abortions. Outside those two policies, I don't envision much change on national abortion laws. Although, I do expect that some (or most) Democrats will try to smuggle in taxpayer-funded abortions as a spending item under the budget reconciliation process.

I agree fully as it comes to Congress, any change on abortion would have to be on the fringes or with budgetary tricks, but I think, especially in a scenario where the filibuster survives, that you may well see more action in the executive branch (just as it is now the centerpiece of gun control rather than Congress). It really depends on whether you have a Republican who is willing to go to the mat, but I would expect, at the bare minimum, fights over approval of abortion pills, and it may well get into wars of regulations and funding conditions depending on who is in office, particularly with a deadlocked Congress and a Chevron-slanted Court.

Though really, in that scenario, I think we would start to see even more of the individual judges issuing nationwide injunctions to gum up the works that we see more and more frequently, which is a mess in and of itself, that really does not have a long-term solution without Congress reclaiming some of its power that it bestowed upon the executive branch, or a far stricter Court standard towards executive rulemaking.

Of course, if the Democrats are foolish enough to destroy the filibuster, then all of that is irrelevant, and we get into what would likely be the most heated and chaotic swings between elections that we have yet seen as a country, if with 50+1 the country can go from nationwide abortion requirements to nationwide abortion bans. I do really think that the Democrat leadership is shortsighted enough to make that dumb of a move, but I do not think that they will get the opportunity unless 2018 really flips backwards.

Nuking the filibuster really leaves one of two scenarios, both bad, either the GOP not gumming up the spine to make abortion legislation after it is put into place post-nuking, or a dramatic escalation of political tensions and division of the type that seems far too likely to start leading to actual violence and political seccessionism and/or nullification.

Roborian wrote:
To be fair, some of those Republicans voting yes were from states like Rhode Island, Delaware, and Vermont (and Maine) I would call this more a matter of the kind of sorting and abolition of the middle that has taken place since then than anything else (Collins, the only GOPer in New England, is pushing an actual codification of Roe, the "Reproductive Choice Act", though she has not yet gone all the way into the Democrat nine-month abortion bill).

I agree fully as it comes to Congress, any change on abortion would have to be on the fringes or with budgetary tricks, but I think, especially in a scenario where the filibuster survives, that you may well see more action in the executive branch (just as it is now the centerpiece of gun control rather than Congress). It really depends on whether you have a Republican who is willing to go to the mat, but I would expect, at the bare minimum, fights over approval of abortion pills, and it may well get into wars of regulations and funding conditions depending on who is in office, particularly with a deadlocked Congress and a Chevron-slanted Court.

Though really, in that scenario, I think we would start to see even more of the individual judges issuing nationwide injunctions to gum up the works that we see more and more frequently, which is a mess in and of itself, that really does not have a long-term solution without Congress reclaiming some of its power that it bestowed upon the executive branch, or a far stricter Court standard towards executive rulemaking.

Of course, if the Democrats are foolish enough to destroy the filibuster, then all of that is irrelevant, and we get into what would likely be the most heated and chaotic swings between elections that we have yet seen as a country, if with 50+1 the country can go from nationwide abortion requirements to nationwide abortion bans. I do really think that the Democrat leadership is shortsighted enough to make that dumb of a move, but I do not think that they will get the opportunity unless 2018 really flips backwards.

Nuking the filibuster really leaves one of two scenarios, both bad, either the GOP not gumming up the spine to make abortion legislation after it is put into place post-nuking, or a dramatic escalation of political tensions and division of the type that seems far too likely to start leading to actual violence and political seccessionism and/or nullification.

Abortion by mail is already a federal crime. It's just a matter of time before state AGs sue the FDA to withdraw its recent abortion pill order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461

And FedEx and UPS won't carry abortion pills, unless they want to be sued into oblivion.

--

A more difficult issue will be the off-label use of emergency contraceptives (EC) as abortifacients. No doubt, some women will try to take 20 EC pills to induce abortion, and some pharmaceutical companies will tacitly encourage that off-label use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulipristal_acetate#Pregnancy

It's entirely foreseeable that at least one state will pass a law that limits the dispensing of ECs and prohibits straw purchases. Planned Parenthood and company will say: "See, we told you that they would be coming after your contraception next!" The state will respond: "Our limit of 4 or 5 ECs per customer per month is totally reasonable. Who needs more than that?"

--

Regarding the nuclear option, it's probably also just a matter of time before some self-appointed, bipartisan group of congressmen proposes a constitutional amendment that would permanently hand abortion over to the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment#Scott_Amendment

Think Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Bob Casey, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney.

Roborian wrote:The GOP could not even get a vote on a partial silencer de-regulation with control of both chambers.

This is a bit off-topic, but am I right in assuming you would support such a measure? If so, can I ask why? I can't think of a legitimate reason for gun owners to have suppressors on their guns in order to defend themselves.

Culture of Life wrote:Republicans in New England, on the other hand, might want to stop being the "pro-life party" and start being the "anti-tax party" again.

I think that's already the case, at least with incumbent New England Republicans.

New Dolgaria wrote:This is a bit off-topic, but am I right in assuming you would support such a measure? If so, can I ask why? I can't think of a legitimate reason for gun owners to have suppressors on their guns in order to defend themselves.

Sure thing: hearing loss. Even if we limit it solely to self-defense, touching off any round inside of a house, especially a rifle round, and double-especially in a shorter barrel, which is what you are more likely to have for a weapon for home defense, is not just loud, but capable of causing immediate permanent hearing loss levels of loud. Even a suppressed firearm is still way above stuff like OSHA maximum volume without hearing protection, but is merely painful rather than potentially causing permanent loss of function.

Though to be honest, self-defense would not be the main reason I would look/argue for for legal suppressors, I think it is sufficient on its own, but the main benefit of it would be for casual target shooting, and not just for the shooter. Outdoor shooting ranges are a hassle for nearby residents for the same reason as airports, noise, and widely available silencers would be a great help for that. Even something as simple as deregulating silencers just for little .22 caliber guns would do a lot of good for the plenty of older folks who have major, and often expensive, hearing loss because they spent their childhood shooting at tin cans or squirrel hunting. They are a nice benefit for everything from hunters limiting how badly a shot scares game a mile off, to being able to talk to your friends at the shooting range without trying to yell over gunshots and through heavy ear protection. The often-quoted line is that mufflers are required on cars, so why should they be illegal on guns? (They are, in fact, the exact same technology, invented by the same man, Hiram Percy Maxim, car mufflers are actually called 'silencers' in the UK).

Many European countries with much, much stricter gun laws than the U.S. make getting silencers far easier, and there is no real evidence of any spikes in crime with them over there any more than there are here. Suppressors, even homemade ones, which are pretty simple to make if you do not care about the law, are virtually never used in crimes-they're frankly inconvenient for them. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns, and a long, clunky suppressor is only really useful for home defense or target shooting, it makes carrying around a concealed gun actively harder. The only real use I hear some people bring up is for something like a professional sniper, which is really just silly levels of policymaking via movie, there literally has not been one since Kennedy. (And if you had a legitimate hitman, they would easily be capable of home-making one).

Sorry if that got a little longer than it should have been, but silencers/suppressors are an issue that I think there is actual legitimate easy ground for agreement on even for people who are very anti-gun, they're virtually useless for crime, do nothing to make a gun any deadlier, and are an active benefit in ways unrelated to being pro-gun, things like preventing hearing loss and benefiting people who live near shooting ranges. Even if they had nothing to do with self-defense, they would be a benefit if legal, even to people who do not own a gun at all. I think opposition to them mostly just comes from people, through no real fault of their own, believe movies that make suppressed guns sound like pop rocks, rather than louder than jackhammers, as they actually are. Disagreeing about something like how many rounds should be allowed in a magazine is certainly a gun rights/gun control argument, but I do not think silencers have to be.

Culture of Life wrote:Abortion by mail is already a federal crime. It's just a matter of time before state AGs sue the FDA to withdraw its recent abortion pill order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461

And FedEx and UPS won't carry abortion pills, unless they want to be sued into oblivion.

What Republicans need to do if they can take Congress, and they might even manage to get the gumption for this over a full abortion ban, is immediately create the abortion equivalent of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Per the GCA, it is illegal to buy a gun in a state you are not a resident of, unless it complies with all laws of the state you are a resident of (and it is illegal for handguns even if it does comply). Make it so that a resident of Arizona cannot get an abortion across state lines in California any more than a Californian can buy a Glock across state lines in Arizona. It is on immensely solid legal footing, interstate commerce, and the GCA has been around for five decades on an actual Constitutional right, so there would be no (legitimate) legal argument against it if it could get through, just do for abortion what Democrats did for guns, turnabout is fair play.

Culture of Life wrote:

A more difficult issue will be the off-label use of emergency contraceptives (EC) as abortifacients. No doubt, some women will try to take 20 EC pills to induce abortion, and some pharmaceutical companies will tacitly encourage that off-label use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulipristal_acetate#Pregnancy

It's entirely foreseeable that at least one state will pass a law that limits the dispensing of ECs and prohibits straw purchases. Planned Parenthood and company will say: "See, we told you that they would be coming after your contraception next!" The state will respond: "Our limit of 4 or 5 ECs per customer per month is totally reasonable. Who needs more than that?"

I frankly did not even think of that. That is going to be a political pain, hearing the "They're coming for your birth control!" rhetoric spin up again.

Culture of Life wrote:

Regarding the nuclear option, it's probably also just a matter of time before some self-appointed, bipartisan group of congressmen proposes a constitutional amendment that would permanently hand abortion over to the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment#Scott_Amendment

Think Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Bob Casey, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney.

I honestly do not think the states would do it. The Senate would be quite a feat, but 38 states would require a deeply bipartisan effort in a way that I just do not think would happen, especially in the blue states. Every politician who has pledged to alternatively 'protect reproductive rights for all Americans', or 'Protect innocent life across this country' would have to reverse course. I think red states would be more likely to go with it, the GOP tends to both favor federalism and, in my opinion, shy away from tough fights, but even if every red state went for it, it would need to at minimum get approved by states up to (by Cook PVI) Oregon and Colorado, and I do not think it would happen.

Arguably it could be justified to blue states by self-preservation, but I think there is clearly a confidence on the left (not entirely misplaced) that things will never be used against them, removing the filibuster, packing the court, even making things like the Disinformation Governance Board, and I think you would end up with a brick wall.

I think mothers have a right to life.

Fruity Fruitcakes wrote:I think mothers have a right to life.

Per over one thousand OB-GYNs and medical experts, as well as Surgeon General Everett Koop, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

Fruity Fruitcakes wrote:I think mothers have a right to life.

You're right. They do, and sometimes you hear anti-abortion speakers minimizing the effects that even a healthy pregnancy has on the mother. That nonsense only legitimizes the claims that detractors make about the pro-life movement.

The fortunate thing is that we don't usually have to choose between the mother's life and the child's life. Abortions are rarely done out of concern for maternal health or life. And if a pregnancy does put the mother in danger, and the child is still healthy and growing, every effort should be made to save both lives and treat them as equally valuable. Neither should be saved at the expense of the other.

Forum View

Advertisement