«12. . .2,2502,2512,2522,2532,2542,2552,256. . .2,5112,512»
Hi just some thoughts.
1. If you are a man trying to control a woman's body. Stop. This is not your decision, ever. Go watch a game, talk about immigrants. Let a woman decide. A Woman can make this decision either way on her own or with help if she asks.
2. If we will make abortion illegal then we must also make vasectomy illegal, that is a lot of unborn without rights.
3. State mandated pregnancy is as communist as one child policies.
4. Look at the world abortion laws. If you believe so strongly about abortion why dont you move to a nation where it is already illegal!? Like El Salvadore or Iraq
https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws?category[294]=294
Thanks,
1. If abortion were just about women's bodies, then most if not all of us would be pro-choice. The problem is that a human being in development is still a human being, not simply a part of the mother's body.
2. In contrast, sperm cells and unfertilized egg cells are clearly not human beings.
3. Not everyone here believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases.
4. "If you want universal healthcare so badly, why don't you move to Scandinavia?" "If you want stronger environmental regulation, why don't you move to Singapore?" ... You see the point? We want to make the countries that we live in better places, so we support legislation (and other efforts) that aims to do so.
Did you look at the world map. Where it is legal and illegal? You have a most of the world giving this procedure upon request - ALL of the developed nations.
Grow an embrio in a test tube if you dont care about a woman.
So, if you support that the government would control more parts of our lives then you would obviously support banning firearms.
So lets say abortion is illegal then. What do you propose to do with all the children born into poverty and situations where they cannot be supported under the mothers current economic status? Because I dont think these are children in Beverly Hills you are losing. Its more like women in poverty. For that matter when it is illegal the rich will simply go to Canada or France and get an abortion upon request. The poor will have to have the state mandated child and welfare system will provide for it - your taxes.
When you think of abortion what do you think of. Do you think of people killing children or do you think of people having sex with no consequence. Either way it should be made illegal, all this does is remind people that there is no consequence to their own actions. It's like having a rich parent go say "shut up go away" and then that problem just disappear.
Abortion is tragic. Nobody should have to go through with it and nobody should have to suffer it. If you think women get an abortion and just dance in the streets after you are wrong. When abortion was illegal in USA - it still happened. A woman got in the alley and then went into the pharmacy and stood on a towel. There the pharmacist knew what was wrong and gave medical help. It happens. Go take care of your kids and your parents. Leave everyone else to their own way. It is not your business to medle in. Pray to Jesus, let others pray to allah.
Just because a lot of nations have abortion available, does not mean I want to give up on making my nation better. Also, developed nations can be wrong, even en-masse. Though, I would support allowing abortion in the case where the mother would die if the baby was born. Plus I believe some others here are also in favour of allowing exceptions for things like health, and in the case of rape. This region is not monolithically opposed to all abortion no matter the circumstance.
I believe you may be confused, as with your earlier note about "state mandated pregnancy" I don't want the state to tell someone to get pregnant, and I don't want to artificially create kids. Rather, if a life has begun I do not want it ended unnaturally by others. Everyone should be free from having their life taken from them, on this I hope we can agree, even if we disagree on what a life is.
I would support expanding programs to alleviate child poverty, and the introduction of VERY tightly regulated (and continuously publically audited) government orphanages for those who are tragically unable to be with their parents. I do not mind paying higher taxes for this. I would like to ask you, at what point of poverty does a child's life become worthless? When is someone so poor they are better off dead? I hope those questions can give you some insight on why I find the "what if they are born poor?" arguments unpersuasive. But, I would like to help children in poverty, and would support government programs that can help towards that end.
New Dolgaria, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, New Kiwis, and 1 otherEire agus alba agus sasana agus cymru
Hello Everyone!
I have an opportunity for the people of this good region, a roleplay opportunity. The small startup region of Nuovoiork is looking for nations to claim land on the map, particularly if any of you would be interested in playing as any potential nations in the fractured continent. Additional information can be found below. If you're interested, feel free to send a puppet over and we'll get you started.
What is the roleplay about?
The roleplay itself is set in an alternate timeline similar to our own. The point of divergence is when Britain and France decide to lend absolute support to the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, causing the war to be prolonged, due to better funding. While the south still loses, the Union is far less untied, and secessionist sentiments run amok.
It is in the 1900s that immigrants from Italy begin settling the east coast by the millions, eventually causing enough tension to cause a race war in New York City, with an Italian ethno-state called Nuovoiork being established and recognized in 1905. From then on, it would inspire various secession movements across the nation, eventually leading to the collapse of the United States by the 1930s.
In this alternate timeline, the story is focused on North America, particularly what became of the balkanized United States, as people struggle to survive and adapt to this dangerous, dark, and backwards mess of a continent. A new dark age has shrouded North America. We aim to shed a light on the geopolitics of the continent, the stories of it's people, and have fun while doing it.
How do I get started?
1) Get your kiester in the region, preferably a puppet of yours so your main nation can continue as is.
2) Talk to me about getting on the map, detailing where you want to be.
3) If you haven't gotten on our 
Discord, get on that.
4) Introduce yourself, and make your first post about where your country will start. Originality and creativity is encouraged.
From humble beginnings
Co-Founded by Nuovoiork and Legio de Caesar on July 20th, 2019, Nuovoiork was originally intended to house puppets and serve as a place for Nuovoiork to wither away after previous failures in Red Pill, Coalesce, Union of Slave States, and Nazi Eurasian SuperContinent. Low and behold, our region slowly but steadily managed to attract a few people, and was eventually repurposed into a roleplaying region, which it still is to this day.
The region originally had a very decentralized roleplay system, and was ultimately rigged against new players, and corrupt rping practices were the norm, as Legio de Caesar and Nuovoiork eventually reached an unrealistic, godlike status in the region's rp, and suffered greatly compared to other roleplay systems in other regions.
Despite this, there were a multitude of different powers to choose from, and the region was at it's most active, with many memorable nations like Heathers of westerburg, Les renards, The arkham state, Fascist state of nuovoiork, The third mexican republic, and the new nazi reich of america all contributing to the rich arrays of roleplay in the region. Business was booming, though it would not last. As the great powers gobbled up the land with no restrictions, the region stopped being competitive, and eventually ended in a nuclear holocaust between Legio de Caesar and Nuovoiork to end the previous system, causing the Great Restart we see today.
The Great Restart
This is where we are now. In this system, we are aiming to improve upon roleplay by modeling it off of Pax Britannia's rolling system (whoever has the bigger number wins in rp battles), not so dissimilar to D&D. In this, we aim to level the playing field so that new players have as much a chance at success as better established nations, as the previous system discouraged new players from entry.
Thank you for your time!
Post self-deleted by Shoppers world.
I am a woman. I do not know all the reasons why women choose to abort or not. As tragic as it is, to make it unlawful will be exactly making guns, drugs and such illegal. People will still obtain it. But instead of a clean procedure it would be clandestine and risky to all because of imprisonment. Beings should be allowed to live. To raise a human takes enormous resources. To create one takes almost no brains, but the entire weight of the issue lies within a woman's life, NOT A MANS. Stay out of womens decisions.
What about women who decide to commit crimes, where is the line for you? At what point can society at large (IE men) weigh in on women's decisions? Should male judges be allowed to oversee court cases involving women? I know those sound ridiculous, but I want to see where you're coming from because I do not understand where the line is.
A man has carried a fetus. You should do so. A woman has a right to decide where I live. This is not even an argument. A woman has the right to decide. You are the one that has to get up to speed on that. You are allowed to have your opinion. It means a lot in Laos, Iraq, The Congo, El Salvador, Jamaica, Haiti = underdeveloped nations. It means nothing in all of Europe, Australia, North America = developed nations.
I think you missed the context there, I was talking about crimes. For example, men passed murder laws, should they be re-passed by an all-women parliament to be binding to women? What about drunk driving? That was the context. Try to follow my line of thought here, you say men should stay out of women's choices, sure fair enough. What if a woman decides to kill somebody? Or drive drunk? Men passed those laws, ergo, if we are not allowed to interfere with women's decisions, but conceivably women can weigh in on those decisions, should those laws be re-passed by an all-women parliament so they can be binding to women? Should men be allowed to tell women murder and drunk driving is wrong, and then punish them for said crimes? I'm confused as to why men can weigh in on any crime for both sexes except abortion.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and New Kiwis
I live in Canada. Murder, drunk driving are illegal. Abortion is legal. Conversely lets talk about the death penalty, stoning of women, shariah law.
I am pro death. If you kill, you should die - that includes a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason-at-all in the worst scenario possible as difficult as it could be. It is the worst decision anyone could make but if it must be, then it should be her choice, along with her medical professional. What if I told you I study Islam?
If it makes you feel better, I oppose the death penalty, the stoning of women, and what I know of sharia law.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and New Kiwis
Wow, that's an activity spike, love to see it. Kudos to Shoppers world for being willing to engage in debate, even if we disagree.
Just a thought, ever consider that it might mean something that all of the countries that you are critical of are majority-nonwhite/black/brown and the countries that you are praising are majority-white?
This is a commonly made argument, but there's no reason to restrict it to abortion, it is not as if legal abortion eliminates child poverty (one can, in fact, make the argument that it encourages it, as the single motherhood rate has risen dramatically since the legalization of abortion.) One can 'solve' the problem of children that cannot be supported by their mothers by aborting them post-birth, but that is seen as an unacceptable. The pro-life position is just saying that it is unacceptable to kill those same children before birth as well.
There is literally an entire movement called "Shout your Abortion!" dedicated to celebrating them. People like Lena Dunham talk about how they wish they had had abortions. If you think that abortion is not increasingly celebrated, you are the one who is objectively wrong. If you truly believe that nobody should have to suffer abortion, then you ought to step up and take the basic step to ban it.
Yes, it still happened-at a far lower rate, which is the point. This is such a bizarre argument to make, it is not as if if we go from 800,000 legal abortions to 10,000 illegal abortions a year that it is somehow a complete failure: that means that 790,000 lives were saved, more lives saved in a year than the U.S. has lost in any war. Heck, if somehow half of abortions continue to happen, that's still near half a million lives every single year, within a few decades more lives would be saved than were lost in the Holocaust.
That sounds like the rallying cry of a Confederate to an abolitionist. Leave us alone, let us do our own thing, it is our land, our property, our business, and you have no right to interfere.
When a class of human beings is treated as less than human and stripped of their most basic rights of life and liberty, it is the responsibility of any person of conscience to 'meddle.'
I have no problem staying out of any woman's decision-I simply request in return that said woman stay out of deciding whether to take a scalpel to severe the spine of her own daughter. A happy compromise, no-one makes any decisions about anyone else's body.
Let's look at that drunk driving example, because it is a good one. A woman wants to put alcohol in her own body, and then drive a car with her own body, all her decision. What gives you the right to control her body by saying she cannot and making it illegal? Leave her to her own way, it's not your business to meddle in, right?
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and New Kiwis
Shoppers world, let's back up a bit here. Since you are clearly an abortion advocate, let me ask you this: is there ANY circumstance in which you believe abortion should not be allowed?
Most people who support abortion do draw the line somewhere. Maybe you believe it should be illegal in the third trimester? Or maybe you oppose sex-selection abortion. Maybe you're turned off by the idea of terminating a pregnancy because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome. There are people who believe it should be available at any time and for any reason, but most people do draw the line somewhere. Do you?
It is not my business to care how, when, what, who - gets a surgery or why or if someone is taking RU486. It is not influencing my way of life. Pro-death. If someone is celebrating an abortion then perhaps its a good thing they are not a parent because their brain is wrecked.
REGARDING: Just a thought, ever consider that it might mean something that all of the countries that you are critical of are majority-nonwhite/black/brown and the countries that you are praising are majority-white?
There are plenty of examples otherwise: South Africa, Mozambique, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Argentina. Those are just facts: https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws?category[294]=294
Literally banned in underdeveloped nations only. Not restricted by politics: China, Vietnam communist - legal; Laos communist - banned.
Every developed nation and more by request: https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws?category[297]=297
That map shows you pretty much exactly what I'm saying. Legal through Europe, North America (Canada and the U.S. that is, not Mexico or Central America), and East Asia, and largely illegal in virtually every African, South American, and South Asian nation, virtually every single "brown or black" country, with very rare exceptions.
If that is your position, I feel like the drunk driving question I asked earlier could use an answer: if it is her body and her choice, and it is not your business 'when, what, who', then how do you justify criminalizing drunk driving?
World abortion laws: So what is your point? Are you trying to derive some casteism or racism out of this? People in Africa do not consider themselves black. They are Yoruba or Igbo etc.
If abortion was illegal people would break the law to get one, in Nigeria for example. That is just what it is.
I dont understand your DUI analogy. Driving is a risk. Why is drunk driving illegal?
https://www.who.int/health-topics/road-safety#tab=tab_1
In USA abortion is used to justify political positions when the reality is this: It became legal under Richard Nixons presidency, his supreme court. Since then USA has had 26 years of republican presidents that ran against abortion and its still legal. Its a non-argument. Its legal and thats it. Dont get one. If she wants one, stay out of it.
Do you feel Covid is the same as the flu?
I think it's at least worth looking at. I don't know your positions on racial issues, white colonialism/imperialism, etc., but as a factual matter a push for repealing abortion laws on a global scale would be a case of largely white nations seeking to push their ideology on largely black/brown nations. Maybe you do not see an issue with that, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
My apologies, I will try to explain it better. Your argument for abortion seems to be that it is a matter of absolute bodily autonomy, that you have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body, even if it does kill an unborn child. Yet, at the same time, you seem to defend drunk driving laws, which explicitly tell a woman what she can do with her own body. What is the justification for that? It cannot be that drunk driving causes a risk to others, because the argument against abortion is that it harms another, the child. So, how can laws against drunk driving be justified if it is her body, her choice, and others do not have a right to interfere?
Again, back to the Confederate analogy, "It's a non-argument, it's legal, and that's it, don't buy a slave but if she wants one, stay out of it." That's a state of affairs that was fundamentally unacceptable to abolitionists, because allowing an injustice to continue was allowing grave harm to continue against people considered less than human. Likewise for abortion.
Horatius Cocles, Meltama, and New Kiwis
No, objectively not. It is far deadlier to older and more vulnerable persons than the flu, and less deadly to younger, healthier people, different in both of those ways, averaging out between them to be significantly more deadly and dangerous than the flu.
COVID is very dangerous, so dangerous that it killed nearly 300,000 people in 2020. That makes it almost half as dangerous as abortion, which killed some 600,000.
EDIT: That actually raises a good question: Do you oppose mask mandates? Mask mandates are explicitly telling a woman what to do with her own body, it seems that you would have to oppose them.
Aawia, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and Meltama
Had a crazy rare allergic reaction to common cold meds I've been taking my whole life and had to go to the ER last night. Recovering and stable thanks to John Henry Newman's intercession and the doctors. Additional prayers would be appreciated! Deo gratia!
Aawia, The Rouge Christmas State, American antartica, Meltama, and 1 otherNew Kiwis
Mask mandates are important.
Driving drunk or doing anything drunk is sure to be risky. People still do it.
Having a law that says you may not choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy is not necessary. Information about risks associated with it should be delivered. This is not a government decision. It is a woman, her family and medical professionals. More people died of heart disease why are you not advocating exercise, diet, heart health?
Who here isn't advocating for healthy lifestyles to combat heart disease? Though I would say there is a difference between someone's bad choices leading to their death, and someone having their life taken from them. I will also say, the argument "well something worse exists so why not focus on that?" Is unpersuasive because people can focus on more than one topic at once.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Meltama, and New Kiwis
«12. . .2,2502,2512,2522,2532,2542,2552,256. . .2,5112,512»
Ad From Max
