by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Election 2020: Kuriko 45.5%, Trans Anarcho-Communist Lesbian Catgirls 33.2%, Caelapes 11.9%, Valentine Z 9.3%

Federation of Conservative Nations Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,4481,4491,4501,4511,4521,4531,454. . .1,8011,802»

Furbish Islands wrote:Well I overestimated everyone's intelligence, looking at the results of the poll.

On an unrelated note, I'm first in this region for recreational drug use and youth rebelliousness, so it looks like I'm doing a good job on creating a libertarian paradise. I wish the US was like this IRL.

How very not conceited of you.

Thegoldcoast

Gladesville wrote:I'm just hoping that Thegoldcoast puts the Red Plus Party in the 12th FCN times.

The spotlight on political parties will return in the 13th Issue, as we have an anonymous piece in our political section this week.

Ibenta wrote:Again, you misinterpreted what I said. I did not say that we should get rid of consent. All I said was that consent alone is not enough. To use a term Viridus loves, I have a more nuanced view than you think.

Also, you linked a video to Sargon of Akkad... LMAO.

lol ik, i view consent alone as enough. its a long vid but it really is well put in general. i view if you agree to something its in the contract. no pull backs. its not fair, but its very realistic.

Barry goldwater the ghost

Barbak wrote:Are you guys pro-life or pro-choice?

I'm pro-life.

Furbish Islands, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta, and 2 othersKleveria, and Juventini

Theodore roosevelt the ghost

Kebabistan

Barry goldwater the ghost wrote:Teenage Theodore Roosevelt be like:

"Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh I have a big................................................................stick."

You know I do!

Furbish Islands wrote:Well I overestimated everyone's intelligence, looking at the results of the poll.

Me after the presidential elections :sadcowboydabs:

Jk

Gagium wrote:Me after the presidential elections :sadcowboydabs:

Furbish Islands wrote:Well I overestimated everyone's intelligence, looking at the results of the poll.

That was also me after your senate confirmation vote

Furbish Islands wrote:That was also me after your senate confirmation vote

I see how it is

Viridus and Kleveria

Juventini

Barbak wrote:Are you guys pro-life or pro-choice?

Late to the party but hey.

Pro-life under all circumstances. I'm not a fan of murdering things with a heartbeat unless you're going to eat it (I.E. animals.) and even then it should be done with respect. Ending an innocent life before it's even born (and then treating the remains as "medical waste") is horrid on another level. Life is a gift and I believe we're born with "Propósito divino," divine purpose (what that purpose is can be debated, but at the end of the day thats why we're given free will) and to take that away in such a manner utterly spits in the face of God and shows absolute disregard and ungratefulness towards the value of life.

As a bit of an aside: I'm very aware I'm more or less preaching to the choir here and don't "need" to elaborate my reasoning, however among anyone who take any position, there's bound to be differing opinions, and I find figuring out the mindset behind why to be beneficial to gaining knowledge and perspective, as well as encourage a good discussion. It can be religious, personal, moral, scientific or more logical based reasoning, but everyones going to be different, so I'd curiously ask with that in mind to anyone, pro-life or not.

Why do you take the stance you do in regards to abortion?

New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta, and 2 othersKleveria, and Barbak

Juventini wrote:I'm not a fan of murdering things with a heartbeat unless you're going to eat it

Are you implying that eating fetuses and humans in general is ok?

Post self-deleted by Gagium.

Juventini

Furbish Islands wrote:Are you implying that eating fetuses and humans in general is ok?

Assuming you're being serious:

I put (I.E. Animals) there for a reason

I assumed it was obvious I wasn't implying that.
I don't believe some of the crazy things I've heard about people "eating fetuses"

But no, I'd never intentionally imply such a disgusting thing.

Assuming this is a joke:

Yes as long as its straight white men /s

Juventini wrote:
Treating the remains as "medical waste" is horrid on another level

While it is a bit morbid it remains a medical necessity. Chances are persons undergoing such a procedure either lack the means or motivation to conduct a proper burial, as such it becomes the unfortunate responsibility of the state. It isn't pretty in anyway but it prevents the spread of disease.

Juventini wrote: thats why we're given free will) and to take that away in such a manner utterly spits in the face of God and shows absolute disregard and ungratefulness towards the value of life.

Removing the ability to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is also an infringement on the idea of free will.

Ultimately my thinking originates from the fact that not all abortions are the result of a life free of inhibitions. Perhaps the parent or parents in questions are categorically unable to properly care for the child. Not to mention cases of sexual assault, incest, or medial complications none of which are exclusive to one another. There simply exists to many opportunities for pregnancy to result from unsanctioned actions, or to represent a significant medical threat to continuation of the mothers life to outlaw abortion in my opinion.

Gagium and Juventini

Washingtonian Republic implements a cultural lingual transition program when the “annexation clause” is used. This primary concerns non-English speaking populations, the objective is the displacement of the native tongue in favor of the American or “Yankee” dialect. The process takes usually a generation to compete, some results have been mixed dialects.

Juventini wrote:Assuming you're being serious:

I wasn't

Well I overestimated Furby's intelligence, looking at his reaction to the results of the poll

Juventini

Huvakia wrote:While it is a bit morbid it remains a medical necessity. Chances are persons undergoing such a procedure either lack the means or motivation to conduct a proper burial, as such it becomes the unfortunate responsibility of the state. It isn't pretty in anyway but it prevents the spread of disease.

Removing the ability to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is also an infringement on the idea of free will.

Ultimately my thinking originates from the fact that not all abortions are the result of a life free of inhibitions. Perhaps the parent or parents in questions are categorically unable to properly care for the child. Not to mention cases of sexual assault, incest, or medial complications none of which are exclusive to one another. There simply exists to many opportunities for pregnancy to result from unsanctioned actions, or to represent a significant medical threat to continuation of the mothers life to outlaw abortion in my opinion.

Those are all beyond understandable points. I respect the position, and to a degree, I will admit the case can be made to allow abortions in extreme situations in which it is needed, I understand every one is not like the other. However

I think throwing in the whole "being too poor to provide" reason with legitimate medical and circumstantial issues is a bit of an odd one? If a child is conceived out of horrid sex crimes then yes, I'm a lot more on the fence than I am solidly on one side of it, but simply on that point, isn't that one far more based on ones own actions? Not things beyond control.

If you're understandably too poor to have a child from the outset, don't have one.
While I don't believe in abortion I will say the "no abortions, no birth control" stance is absolutely ridiculous. I believe fully in spreading education on these sorts of things across the world over, and giving easier, cheapier, and better access to birth control and other products of the like is absolutely crucial.

And in the majority of cases? That would dramatically reduce accidental pregnancy, being too poor to provide isn't really a great excuse excluding it's in addition to things you previously mentioned, sex crime and the like. A lot of that comes down more to individual choices or lack of choices in terms of birth control. Thats a far more solvable issue.

But, besides that, yes you raise good points, and many soon boil down to the base fundamentals of ones morals at a core level. In the context of extreme cases via medical or criminal, I can't really give you a "yes I agree" or a "no I disagree" simply because, well as you sort of implied it's never a black and white issue

I appreciate the response!

Gagium and Barbak

Viridus wrote:Well I overestimated Furby's intelligence, looking at his reaction to the results of the poll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crOTKWLtjlY

R E K T .

Juventini wrote:
I think throwing in the whole "being too poor to provide" reason with legitimate medical and circumstantial issues is a bit of an odd one? If a child is conceived out of horrid sex crimes then yes, I'm a lot more on the fence than I am solidly on one side of it, but simply on that point, isn't that one far more based on ones own actions? Not things beyond control.

If you're understandably too poor to have a child from the outset, don't have one.
While I don't believe in abortion I will say the "no abortions, no birth control" stance is absolutely ridiculous. I believe fully in spreading education on these sorts of things across the world over, and giving easier, cheapier, and better access to birth control and other products of the like is absolutely crucial.

My point in highlighting lack of financial stability was not to imply that this was as serious as some of the other examples. Responsibility does rest with the parents in these cases (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure) and this is exactly why I believe this decision should remain in their hands. The question at hand isn't the morality, or responsibility involved with getting pregnant. Regardless of how the pregnancy occurred if the parent recognizes that they're incapable of providing and has the child anyway, they are knowingly condemning the child to potential lifelong suffering. Situations can change and improve or they can get worse, meaningful movement in the real world is incredibly difficult. If you're a person who can barely take care of themselves is it morally responsible to bring a child into the world knowing that they will likely spend their days destitute and hungry?

Consequences aren't solely the burden of the child either, further economic detriment by carrying the child to term can occur as the mother looses productivity and mobility in the workplace, employment may become jeopardized. If it is maintained, once the child is born a further time requirement is placed on the parent for years until the child can reach some level of self sufficiency. Failure to provide sufficient resources and time to your child is also a crime in most developed nations and can result in fines, loss of custody, jail time, or commonly a combination.

It's a slippery slope of an issue and the realities of it all tend to send everyone home with a phyrrich victory XD

Juventini wrote:I appreciate the response!

You're welcome! Nice to have civil discussions even if the topic is anything but...

Juventini

Post self-deleted by Barbak.

Barbak

Government should help financially the parent if the parent isn't financially stable to be able to feed their child

Huvakia, Gagium, Ibenta, and Juventini

Thegoldcoast wrote:The spotlight on political parties will return in the 13th Issue, as we have an anonymous piece in our political section this week.

Okay, thanks for the trailer.

Thegoldcoast and Gagium

Barbak wrote:Government should help financially the parent if the parent isn't financially stable to be able to feed their child

Wrong, the community and charities should. The government should help only as a last resort.

Huvakia, New Waldensia, Gagium, Kleveria, and 1 otherJuventini

Certificate Of Need (CON) laws are so 1970's. They provide little to no benefit for anyone accept the already established companies.

Libervalley wrote:Wrong, the community and charities should. The government should help only as a last resort.

Lmao. Do I even have to point out how unreasonable this policy subscription is? It's ideologically consistent with your beliefs, sure, but it's also insane.

«12. . .1,4481,4491,4501,4511,4521,4531,454. . .1,8011,802»

Advertisement