-
24 May ' 03:04
(elected 295 days ago)
The Largest Trout Fishing Sector in Capitalist Paradise
3rd in the world for Largest Trout Fishing Sector.
The Allied Corporate Empire of Northern Borland“A Good Place to Raise Your Business” 
The Infection of EdgemasterCompulsory Consumerist State “KICK LOGIC OUT AND DO THE IMPOSSIBLE!!” 
The Dominion of The CaptainCorporate Police State “A friendly place for the upper class” 
The Three Holy Kingdoms of New MesopelagiaCompulsory Consumerist State “Greed Is Eternal” 
The Benevolent Dictatorship of CanterburieInoffensive Centrist Democracy “Peace Through Strength” “Leave Us Alone.” 
The Incorporated States of TyrranistamCompulsory Consumerist State “Do what works.” 
The Most Serene Republic of Avimimus“Me ineptum” 
The Confederacy of AjoriaInoffensive Centrist Democracy “We may be stupid, but we have power!” - 108 minutes ago:
The United States of CPNSThe East Pacific
- 5 hours ago: The Republic of Washburnes ceased to exist.
- 9 hours ago:
- 1 day 5 hours ago: The Corporate Cesspit of Wealth Poverty Divide ceased to exist.
- 1 day 17 hours ago: The Dictatorship of Earthly Dominance ceased to exist.
- 2 days 5 hours ago: The Commonwealth of Kids in the Hall ceased to exist.
- 2 days 16 hours ago:
- 3 days 4 hours ago: arrived from .
- 3 days 5 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 3 days 5 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
To The Constitutional Republic of Sucrati,
Why can we not cut spending other then military and discretionary?
- 108 minutes ago:
-
23 May ' 18:39
- 54 minutes ago: departed this region for The Pacific
- 20 hours ago: The Corporate Cesspit of Wealth Poverty Divide ceased to exist.
- 1 day 8 hours ago: The Dictatorship of Earthly Dominance ceased to exist.
- 1 day 20 hours ago: The Commonwealth of Kids in the Hall ceased to exist.
- 2 days 7 hours ago:
- 2 days 19 hours ago:
The Stratocracy of Swabian Ascendancy. - 2 days 20 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 2 days 20 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 2 days 20 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 2 days 20 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
To
The Allied States of Reed AudioI oppose Barack Obama for his far right authoritarian principles. I believe him to be a fascist; not much better than Stalinist except he sides with corporations instead of the collective. Although I can't speak to his associations, I don't believe he is a Marxist at all. A Marxist, for example, would not have assassinated Osama bin Laden, as bin Ladin is a leftist who wants Western corporations to stop supporting the fascist governments that control Muslim people. Obama would not have allowed the war in Afghanistan to spill so quickly into Pakistan, as the entire war in Afghanistan is only happening four two reasons: first, so American companies can build an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan, and into the Arabian see so Kazakh oil will be more accessible to the world market and not have to flow through Russia, and second, for American Fortune 500 companies can continue to profit off of the international heroine trade, neither of which were possible under the Taliban regime.
Obama has also opposed the lifting of the embargo on Cuba, even with most countries (including all Latin American countries) trying to get him to.
Obama has opposed the ending of the drug war, and is presently doing more to target pot users and distributes than any other president in US history. Cannabis has the potential to replace 80% of existing prescription drugs and almost any American can grow it in their own homes for just the price of the seeds, and an increase in their water and electricity consumption (which if their only growing for themselves, won't be a lot). As a medicine, it's non-addictive, hasn't killed anyone, extremely effective at fixing most ailments, and the only health risk is a slight chance of getting bronchitis. It also has a lot of other uses which could compete with businesses aside from professional medicine and pharmaceutical industries. Here's a pic that my brother stumbled on: http://kingstoncompassion.org/cannabisandcapitalism.jpg Exactly how does keeping cannabis illegal and siding with all of those companies, forcing such an effective product off of the market and out of the hands of the American people something that one could quantify as Marxist? Marxism is about deliberately empowering the collective against the individual, and this action only empowers certain individuals against the collective. The action Obama is taking is deliberately anti-Marxist, and fascism and Marxism are polar opposites.
As for your claim of his hatred of America, I have no idea. Fascists generally keep their motives secret, and it's difficult to tell of they view their own country with love, hatred, or disdain. Did Hitler love or hate Germany? Maybe both? I don't know.
Obama's total government spending has been around $5 trillion. $4 trillion of this has already been covered. Only $1 trillion of his spending has actually added to the debt. Only adding $1 trillion is much lower than that added by most recent presidents. Even so, it was never his money to spend, and it was entirely acquired by theft, but so was all the spending by almost every other president we've ever had, so I mostly consider that to be an irrelevant point.
The Environmental Protection Agency was formed in 1970. The National Labor Relations Board was formed in 1935. If memory serves me, Obama became president after those institutions came into existence...
We have strong disagreement as to why we should oppose Obama.
Okay, so with my youthful use of search engines, I found that Obama did oppose a bill that would have granted a living fetus legal protection, even if doctors felt there was no way to save the child. What I also found was that at the same time, Obama supported a nearly identical bill which ended up passing and Bush signed into law. The only major difference between the two bills was that the first bill that you demonize him for not supporting did not contain protections for Roe v. Wade, whereas the nearly identical bill he did support and was signed into law does contain protections for Roe v. Wade, SO you were half right; he did oppose the bill, but not for the reason you claimed, and it turns out he believes exactly the opposite of what you believed he believes on the issue of live birth abortions.
I think that you hate Obama for all of the reasons Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck wants you to hate him... which in my view, are all make believe reasons, which is frustrating, because there are plenty of good ones.
The worst thing: When you have a deficit that adds onto the debt, how exactly are you to have it paid off? You can't raise taxes because people will just take their money and put it somewhere else, and apparently you cannot cut spending, except military and 'discretionary' spending, which technically isn't part of the budget, but just spending without said budget.
-
23 May ' 07:25
(elected 294 days ago)
The Most Influential in Capitalist Paradise
World Census experts spent many evenings loitering in the corridors of power in order to determine which nations were the greatest international diplomacy heavyweights.
11th in the world for Most Influential.
The Federation of LubevCapitalizt “If you don't know anything, you're in Lubev” 
The Free Secular Federation of Nation of QuebecCorporate Bordello “In Freedom We Trust” 
The Free Republic of Afforess“A light in darkness, when all other lights go out...” 
The Clampdown of KaputerCapitalist Paradise “Pop Tarts for all” 
The Compact of Amn Voss“The Voice of None is Greater than the Voice of One” 
The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum“Libertas Supra Omnia” 
The Enlightened Corporatocracy of Caelestius
Corporate Bordello “Perfection Manifested” 
The Gestalten In-Group of Mollux“Fi Utile Totes Obvi” - 9 hours ago: The Corporate Cesspit of Wealth Poverty Divide ceased to exist.
- 21 hours ago: The Dictatorship of Earthly Dominance ceased to exist.
- 1 day 9 hours ago: The Commonwealth of Kids in the Hall ceased to exist.
- 2 days 8 hours ago:
- 2 days 9 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 2 days 9 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 2 days 9 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 2 days 9 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 2 days 9 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
Mnai - I oppose Barack Obama because of his far left political background and wild spending (and wild regulating) economic policies. By the way I apologize for implying that you opposed late term abortions - I was thinking of X and forgot about you. Again I apologize for (unintentionally) misrepresenting your position.
Abortion is not a Federal government matter (or should not be - Roe V Wade has nothing whatever to do with the actual Constitution of the United States as written) so that does not come into it. Social matters in general should be nothing to do with the Federal government - as it should have no "police power".
What are your reasons for opposing Barack Obama?
Do you oppose his (lifelong) Marxist associations? His deep hatred of the West in general and the United States in particular (just as his mother, Stanley Ann, and chidhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, did - and on and on at Occidental and then Columbia and then the city of Chicago).
Do you oppose his TRILLIONS of Dollars of extra government spending?
Do you oppose his vast increase in REGULATIONS (for example via the EPA and NLRB)?
If you do then we have a large measure of AGREEMENT.
Oh by the way - I am certain you can use a search engine.
As a much younger person that me all this internet stuff should be easy for you. So if you really "do not know" about Barack Obama's activities as a State Senator (on the 2002 State Bill that would have protected babies that survived abortion and were OUTSIDE the mother's body).
Then you DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.
You have plenty of chances to find out (it would have been easy for you to find out what Jill Stanek and other people who testified before the Illinois State Legislature found out about the real Barack Obama - the man behind the "compassionate" mask) - and you have chosen not to.
So you DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.
-
22 May ' 19:28
- 9 hours ago: The Dictatorship of Earthly Dominance ceased to exist.
- 21 hours ago: The Commonwealth of Kids in the Hall ceased to exist.
- 1 day 8 hours ago:
- 1 day 20 hours ago:
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
- 1 day 21 hours ago: The United States of Juggin ceased to exist.
Sorry to butt in, but Mnai, at what point in a person's life do you believe they acquire property rights? You have stated before that if nothing else, a person's body is his/her own. What gives a doctor or a parent the right to lay hands on an infant's body (read: property) and destroy it?
To
The Sultanate of Jebediah Von WhittakerYou acquire property when you are alive. It's not that others are allowed to violate the property rights of the infant, but that the infant is not allowed to violate the property rights of its parents, the hospital, school, church, nursery, orphanage, what have you, and that each of these parties are allowed to defend their property by any means necessary. The dilemma of Mnai is that all property is private, meaning there is not public place with which to put an unwanted child, and so an unwanted children become part of the problem of homeless Mnaians. In the case of homelessness in Mnai, you have people actively trespassing and littering on the property of others, lowering property values, and acting in a state of perpetual violation of the property rights of others, and because of this, Mnaians, when dealing with homeless trespassers on their property, are encouraged by the Mnaian Corporation through private advertisement to use lethal means to defend their property. In effect, we have capital punishment for homelessness, and that extends to all demographics.
-
22 May ' 08:50
(elected 293 days ago)
The Happiest Citizens in Capitalist Paradise
A recent survey attempted to measure the average happiness of citizens in various nations. These results should be treated with caution, however, as results tend to fluctuate from day to day.
9,716th in the world for Happiest Citizens.
The Perpendicular Parallels of PerpendiculousAnarchy “Phase 1 Collect Underpants, Phase 2 ?, Phase 3 Profit!” 
The Majestic Empire of GradenkCapitalizt “Veni,Vedi,Vici” The Confederate States of New ZaltaAnarchy “Deo Vindice” 
The 9 Billion SOB's of FASTERCATAnarchy “Moonbat Free Since '63” 
The Free Land of Arizoneia
“Irrelevant. Resistance is futile.” 
The Democratic Holy Empire of Phonencia“Deus Et Patriae, God and Country” 
The United Federation of Plisskenstan
“Pecunia non olet” 
The Peaceful Land-Area of GabeWorld
Liberal Democratic Socialists “All creatures deserve happiness!” 
The Federation of Autonomous City-statesCivil Rights Lovefest “Each man is an end in himself, free in himself.” - 11 hours ago: The Commonwealth of Kids in the Hall ceased to exist.
- 1 day 10 hours ago:
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
- 1 day 11 hours ago: The United States of Juggin ceased to exist.
- 1 day 19 hours ago:
The Allied States of Reed AudioI do oppose Barack Obama, but I believe for different reasons than you do. I highly doubt that Barack Obama has backed legislation that kills babies that have been born... and request that you post the name of the bill that allows that practice.
As for whether the baby survives after being born, the Mnaian approach is that if someone's willing to take care of the child, the child lives, but if not, no one ought to be forced to, and the child unfortunately becomes medical waste.
You still didn't answer the question I asked, so I'll ask it again: At what point is it the role of government to tell a person that they may not remove another person from their property, charity, or body?
The Protectorate of Mass CannibalismWe Mnaians are almost in agreement. We don't believe the child is property of the parents, and they can kill the child of they wish, but if they no longer want to take care of the child, that's their decision, and it is in their rights to evict the child from their home by any means they deem necessary.
-
21 May ' 21:09
-
The Democratic States of Eruisia of the region Land of the Respected proposed constructing embassies. - 22 hours ago:
- 23 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago: The United States of Juggin ceased to exist.
- 1 day 7 hours ago:
- 1 day 7 hours ago:
Well of course. Human empathy will dictate that the first two options will be chosen 99.9% of the time. I just don't believe it is the role of government to force people into parasitic relationships or charity.
By creating a child, the parents haven't signed any binding contract. They never made an agreement with anyone. They gave the child life, and that is all. They owe the child nothing.
Also, people should have a right to say who gets to stay and who has to leave their property. Would you consider it a beneficial if government decides for you, who's allowed on your property, and who you are allowed to expel? That's an obvious infringement on your rights as a property owner, and stands in the way of capitalism.
Xyanth it is a cop out.
You are claiming that a baby (at least an early to mid term baby) is not a baby because the baby is a problem - a drag on someone's lifestyle.
The Romans made the same argument for killing babies AFTER they were born.
But at least they did not claim the mantle of science.
Still I have read what you wrote and you clearly oppose killing the baby after he or she is born. And you oppose late term abortions.
I.E. you oppose the Obama position - on both these things.
And this is good.
Now let us see Mnai also oppose the Obama position.
On both late term abortions, and on killing a baby who has managed to survive an abortion.
Come on Mnai, as a libertarian it should be easy for you to oppose Barack Obama - and to condemn him.
After all I attacked Bush - on TARP and lots of other stuff.
As for early term abortions.....
O.K. there is no agreement here on that.
But we are all united in opposing late term abortions and in opposing killing a baby who has managed to survive.
And that is quite a lot of agreement.
To The Allied States of Reed Audio
You see it as a cop out, I see it as simple biology. Somewhere there is a line were a fetus changes from a growth to a child. We will have to agree to disagree on where that line is.
I support early, and late, and post-birth, all the way up school-age. Can't understand why what other people do with their kids is something I or anyone else should be concerned about. But the world is made up of nosy moral absolutists, so what can you do?
-
-
21 May ' 09:40
- 10 hours ago:
- 12 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 12 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 12 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 12 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 12 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
- 12 hours ago: The United States of Juggin ceased to exist.
- 19 hours ago:
- 19 hours ago:
- 19 hours ago:
To The Incorporated States of Mnai,
We are going to have to agree to disagree. Late term abortions are one thing. I oppose them for the reasons outlined above.
But declaring a baby a trespasser is not realistic. The child has no choice in the matter and is essentially powerless to remove itself from the situation. Lacking other options, either the mother or the hospital dropping it in a dumpster like so many unwanted kittens is not and never will be acceptable in my view. Ultimately, the mother (and ideally the father) needs to be held responsible for that child. That includes caring for or securing care for that child and financial responsibility.
That is called taking responsibility for your actions, the point Randian was so vehemently pushing. I do not think the hospital should be stuck with the child. Nor do I think the state should be stuck with the child without getting child support from the mother and father.
This is where privately run charities come into play. Churches are really good at this sort of thing. At one time all the orphanages in the United States were run by churches.
At no time should a full term child be treated like an unwanted pet under the law. That is a very dangerous line we should not approach, let alone cross.
-
21 May ' 03:48
(elected 292 days ago)
The Largest Public Sector in Capitalist Paradise
Nations ranked highly have relatively large governments and offer the most extensive public services.
10,768th in the world for Largest Public Sector.
The Green Feminist Commune of Roxie HartLeft-wing Utopia “If you can't be famous, be infamous.” 
The Encapsulated Confederacy of SkigreyCivil Rights Lovefest “Freedom isn't free.” 
The Morphogenetic Powerfield of NarconaniaNew York Times Democracy “Read my lips” 
The Green Technocracy of Uchila EruCivil Rights Lovefest “Peace, Unity, Freedom” 
The Dictatorship of DontTrustAnyone“One nation - One people - One dictator” 
The Liberal Socialist Paradise of FarflorinCivil Rights Lovefest “Semper Libri” 
The Empire of Runegeist“Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!” 
The Sosialist Empire of YupunFather Knows Best State “Long live the beautiful Empress!” 
The Dictatorship of Earthly DominanceIron Fist Consumerists “Everything that is not banned is compulsory” 
The Protectorate of TempeltonInoffensive Centrist Democracy “Our Day Will Come ...” 29
- 5 hours ago: The Stratocracy of Swabian AscendancyThe Ascendancy
- 6 hours ago: The Kingdom of Wonton Noodle Soup ceased to exist.
- 6 hours ago: The Principality of Indiananapolis Indiana ceased to exist.
- 6 hours ago: The United Kingdom of Kjek ceased to exist.
- 6 hours ago: The Principality of JustMyLuck ceased to exist.
- 6 hours ago: The Confederacy of ITSNAZ ceased to exist.
- 6 hours ago: The United States of Juggin ceased to exist.
- 14 hours ago:
- 14 hours ago:
- 14 hours ago:
To The Allied States of Reed Audio
No, it is not a "cop out" for all the reasons outlined above. (See the above post: To The Rogue Nation of Randian) It is basic biology. Not even anything advanced. Perhaps you should read that post.
And, like The Rogue Nation of Randian, you are comparing apples to hand grenades. The difference between aborting a first trimester fetus and failing to care for an infant are two vastly different things.
Had you taken the time to read what I wrote above, you would also know I consider the ok-to-abort line drawn up to the point the baby can survive in a neonatal intensive care unit. Now if that is not providing care, I don't know what is.
That difference is vastly relevant. Up until the early 1970s when politics and religion began forcing their will on science and medical disciplines (There's a mutually exclusive concept if I ever heard one) doctors and scientists also drew that line at the point a fetus had a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. There was very little thought given to aborting the mother before that point if something was wrong. It was pretty much thought of as removing a tumor.
After that line, more consideration was given, even to the point of suggesting a C-Section. But the final decision was left up to the mother.
When it all comes down to brass tacks, nothing you, Randian or I think really matters. The entire argument comes down to the right of a woman to carry or not carry a fetus early in the pregnancy. Government has no place in a highly personal choice like that. The woman's motivations are no one's business.
If she decides early enough to abort the fetus then she should be able to abort it. It is not my call. It is not your call. Let us all hope and pray the government never gets to make that call either.
To
The Allied States of Reed AudioI didn't say that your mind was jumbled or unclear, rather I said that your points were. You've been expressing yourself in a manner that shows an obvious (and I don't mean to blame you for it) lack of a classical education. Some of your points make sense, and are broken down into each individual paragraph, but often you'll have one point broken into several incomplete sentences across two or even three paragraphs, and many of your points aren't even applicable to the situation; for example, why do you keep targeting liberals? You aren't arguing with liberals. This is a debate about a libertarian philosophy vs. a conservative philosophy on abortion. You and
have done a very good job of presenting yourselves as the conservatives, whereas (and I don't mean to say we're totally on the same side) 
The Democratic Republic of Xyanth and myself have presenting views closer to that of libertarian philosophy. No one here is representing liberal views, so please see why I say that your points have been rather unclear.I'll address the same question to you, that I addressed to Randian, because to me, that's the nature of this issue: At what point is it the role of government to tell a person that they may not remove another person from their property, charity, or body?
To
The Democratic Republic of XyanthI'd like to start with an apology for missing a previous point of yours, in response to one of mine. I must have gotten too caught up in debating the other nations to see your post. As it really hasn't been much of a debate as of yet, besides you and I posting what we believe over and over again in the hope of making ourselves clear to the conservatives, I'd like to address the main point you made.
"If you permit late term abortions (except to save the mother) or permit the euthanasia of defective children where are you going to draw the line. What is murder, what is euthanasia? Who would you trust to draw that line? Who would you trust to adjust that line in the future? (You know that very few laws remain the same if for no other reason then the legislators believe they have to justify their existence.)"
For me, it is a matter of trespass. If anything is absolutely your property, it is your body. I feel a woman seeking an abortion is someone who wants to remove a trespasser from her body. If the child can survive, of course, I'm no fool, babies, and even toddlers are helpless, but helplessness doesn't mean they have the right to violate the property rights of others. When the baby is removed from the mother, if the child survives, she may choose to keep it. If not, she has the option to try to find a third party to take care of the child, and if she does find one, that's all well and good, but if she can't, or simply doesn't want to, that should be well within her right as an individual, and she leaves the hospital, baby-free, and responsible-free (with the exception of the bill, of course). Now, the child has been left in the hospital, and the hospital has three options. Option one: the hospital takes care of the child. Option two: if option one is a charity the hospital doesn't want or can't do, they may try to find a third party to take care of the infant. Option three: if option one and option two are both options that the hospital won't or can't do, they are now dealing with a trespasser on their property, and so option three is the forceful removal of the trespasser from their property, any way they deem necessary, so long as it does not violate the property rights of others. Now, there's another thing that could happen, in which hospitals require mothers sign contracts that if the baby survives, the child is their responsibility to remove from hospital property upon the mother leaving, in which the mother is simply given the same three options the hospital is given. This is how
The Incorporated States of Mnai deals with this issue. - 5 hours ago:
-
20 May ' 17:17
Anarchy - 3 hours ago:
The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum rejected World Economic Alliance's request for regional embassies. - 3 hours ago: The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum rejected 's request for regional embassies.
- 3 hours ago: The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum rejected The Alliance of Enlightened Rulers's request for regional embassies.
- 3 hours ago: The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum rejected Empire of Andrew's request for regional embassies.
- 3 hours ago: The Paradise of Ad Vitam Adsum updated the World Factbook entry.
- 19 hours ago: The Free Markets of 3y3r001yu ceased to exist.
- 23 hours ago:
- 1 day 2 hours ago:
- 1 day 7 hours ago: The Free World of Ahmericah ceased to exist.
Xyanth, your condescension and moral relativism (along with your faux scientific stance) really tells me more about your religion (the dogma of science - or what you think is science) than it does about anything else.
Communication with your nation is terminated.It is a shame The Rogue Nation of Randian terminated communication with Xyanth. It would be interesting to be shown the errors in my "faux scientific stance."
At what point is it the role of government to tell a person that they may not remove another person from their property, charity, or body?
Mnai it is your mind that is "jumbled" and "unclear".
Xyanth.
Can a baby survive on his or her own?
No - a baby (or even a child of two to three years of age) can not survive without help (they would starve to death).
So the point about a baby in a womb being unable to survive on his or her own is true - but not relevant. At least not relevant in the direction you think it is.
If someone has a child they have a responbility to that child - till they are grown and can look after themselves.
And that is not just the mother - it is the father also.
Humans are not (or need not be) mindless beasts - we can control our sexual impluses.
If we do not control them, and father a child - then we have a responsibilty to that child.
Saying "the child is a parasite - kill them".
Or "it is not a child - abort it".
Is no good - it is a cop out.
Of course looking after a child can be a burden on someone's "lifestyle".
Such is life.
How can "liberals" say that we have a legal obligation to pay tax to provide for poor (and not so poor) people we have never met - but also say that it is O.K. for parents to not provide (indeed to KILL) their own children?
That is classic Rousseau - the "love of humanity" but not an ounce of personal responsiblity.
By the way - on the "outside the body" point.
As I have said several times....
Barack Obama supported killing a child even if he or she had survived the abortion and was OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S BODY.
Was this point so "jumbled" or "unclear" that people missed it?
If "liberals" really were concerned about the terrible "baby in the belly" problem (horror of horrors - the mother now looks fat and has morning sickness, so it is O.K. to cut the baby to bits), they would welcome technology that allows the baby to survive (and develop) outside the mother's body at a younger age.
Instead there seems to be some sort of disgust at the idea of the baby surviving OUTSIDE the mother's body.
Why is that?
- 3 hours ago:
-
20 May ' 06:54
(elected 291 days ago)
The Largest Insurance Industry in Capitalist Paradise
2nd in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.
The Allied Corporate Empire of Northern Borland“A Good Place to Raise Your Business” The Infection of Edgemaster“KICK LOGIC OUT AND DO THE IMPOSSIBLE!!” Compulsory Consumerist State The Free Secular Federation of Nation of QuebecAnarchy “In Freedom We Trust” The Perpendicular Parallels of PerpendiculousAnarchy “Phase 1 Collect Underpants, Phase 2 ?, Phase 3 Profit!” Corporate Bordello “Peace Through Strength” The Compact of Amn VossAnarchy “The Voice of None is Greater than the Voice of One” 
The Armed Libertariana of Gydonia“Buy! Sell! Bye!” The Most Serene Republic of AvimimusAnarchy “Me ineptum” - 9 hours ago: The Free Markets of 3y3r001yu ceased to exist.
- 13 hours ago:
- 16 hours ago:
- 21 hours ago: The Free World of Ahmericah ceased to exist.
- 22 hours ago:
- 1 day 8 hours ago:
The Democratic Emirates of Vogo
- 1 day 9 hours ago: The Free Land of Gandalfzvn ceased to exist.
- 1 day 13 hours ago:
- 1 day 15 hours ago:
- 1 day 20 hours ago:
Xyanth, define "survive". Yes, after birth, the baby can breathe without the mother's help. But, it cannot feed itself or defend itself at all. It will die quickly. Should we allow the killing of infants due to their inability to provide for themselves the very life-sustaining functions we as older humans take for granted? In fact, there are some sickos out there who publicly advocate for a parent's choice to end an infant's life for just this reason. They are technically not viable. That is science too!!!!! And, btw, life begins as conception. That is science!
To The Rogue Nation of Randian
I explained my definition of "able to survive" above. Let me refresh your memory: If the fetus has a reasonable chance to survive outside the womb using the facilities in a neonatal intensive care unit, then that is a viable child and should not be aborted except to save the mother.
Your point does not hold water. You are comparing (negligent?) infanticide to abortion. Your argument fails because no matter how much you care for a 14 week old fetus outside the womb, it will not survive. In fact with those under developed lungs, it will not survive more then a minute or two. That is not a child.
At one time survivability was the scientific definition of the line between fetus and baby as well. Alas, various dogma and religious views polluted the scientific realities of the situation.
The idea that life begins at conception is no where near science. It is pure religious dogma at its finest. (I sometimes believe the church is down on abortion because it takes the consequence of community shame out of non-church-sanctioned sex.)
Basic biology shows us the error of that mindset. Conception is merely a word that means hormonal agents triggered cell division in a biological structure called an ova. Those cells began dividing, doubling every so often. And that cluster of cells managed to be the first to embed in the uterine wall.
If someone really wants to push the ignorance of life beginning at conception, using that logic one could say that any given premenstrual female is carrying 400,000+ lives with her.
I got another flash for you. Typically after intercourse it is not uncommon for upwards of thirty ova to be fertilized and begin developing. However, the first one to make it down the fallopian tube and embed in the uterine wall wins. That sets off another hormonal trigger that prevents the other fertile, developing eggs, known as zygotes, from embedding. (Most of the time.)
If we apply your life-begins-at-conception logic, nature (God?) aborts babies on a scale that dwarfs medical abortions into a fraction so insignificant it is not worth calculating.
So no. The idea that life begins at conception is not science. Never has been. Never will be. That is right up there with the Christians that believe Darwin was wrong, carbon dating lies and the Earth is just a fuzz over three thousand years old.
The real question here is when that cluster of cells qualifies as a separate entity in its own right. If you are going to tell me a cluster of cells taking up less volume then the head of a pin is a child, there is really no point in debating with you. You are lost to what ever dogma you've been programmed with and we will have to agree to disagree.
I chose to draw the line where science originally drew it before the politics of religion and control got into the game. If the mother's life is in danger, there is no line. That is her choice and her choice alone.
Randian, you really need to go out, party hard and wake up with a naked woman in your bed. I think it would do you a lot of good.
I would like to take a moment and note the passing of the long time native and Capitalist Paradise member, 3y3r001yu.
Giving a shout out to Reed Audio and Randian. Preach it!
I would give a shout out the other way, but it would seem a horrendously uncouth thing to do...preach it? Please. If anything needs to be rely on preaching to be considered true, I seriously doubt it relies on little more than slurs, lazy generalities and cheap ad-hominems. It's well time someone confronted that.
Well said, Xyanth. Well said, indeed.
Search the Site
