|
|
Post by Mintonity on Apr 12, 2017 12:17:06 GMT
Discuss and debate your most controversial opinions, find agreement or defend your ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freeland Newworldia on Apr 17, 2017 21:41:54 GMT
Abortion. With most political debates, the liberal perspective immediately seems better for me, although there may be some parts of the debate where conservatives have valid points. For this debate, I believe that the entire conservative perspective is completely valid. I'm fine with abortions in cases of the mother's life being in danger, rape, early on while the pregnancy is an embryo, and if the baby/fetus has a disease that kills it soon after birth, but I truly don't think that a families' economic situation being dire or a debilitating but not fatal disease in the baby/fetus is enough to justify the killing of a baby/fetus late in a pregnancy.
P.S. - Unlike many conservatives, I do support sex education and birth control to prevent STDs, overpopulation, and possible abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by North American Republics on Apr 17, 2017 23:18:23 GMT
Abortion. With most political debates, the liberal perspective immediately seems better for me, although there may be some parts of the debate where conservatives have valid points. For this debate, I believe that the entire conservative perspective is completely valid. I'm fine with abortions in cases of the mother's life being in danger, rape, early on while the pregnancy is an embryo, and if the baby/fetus has a disease that kills it soon after birth, but I truly don't think that a families' economic situation being dire or a debilitating but not fatal disease in the baby/fetus is enough to justify the killing of a baby/fetus late in a pregnancy. P.S. - Unlike many conservatives, I do support sex education and birth control to prevent STDs, overpopulation, and possible abortions. To kick this off, that's a fine post. I do have to counter by saying that the economic situation and potential fetal conditions are rather important factors to overlook. 1) If I'm in long-term unemployment, I can hardly afford to keep myself alive, let alone a creature that won't be able to (legally) work for at least 16 years. I would also be bringing a child into a world of cyclical poverty, where the chances of my child breaking free are ridiculously slim (particularly nowadays when real wages are stagnant or falling). 2) Assuming I work 60 hours a week at minimum wage, where would I find the money to have my kid babysat? Or the time to be a part of the kid's life to a good degree? I would have about 5 hours a day to dedicate to my child, assuming I don't go crazy first with no time to myself. Giving birth could be delayed by abortion until I either gain higher wages (and take less hours) or have someone in my life who is able to help me out somehow. (If I have just lost my job, see point 1). 3) If my doctor and myself figure out that my baby would probably have Down's Syndrome, is it not merciful to stop the fetus' development in the womb before it can feel? Before it gets a chance to become a person? This is compounded further by the economic situation (see point 2). |
|
|
|
Post by Harndon on Apr 18, 2017 9:40:03 GMT
Abortion. With most political debates, the liberal perspective immediately seems better for me, although there may be some parts of the debate where conservatives have valid points. For this debate, I believe that the entire conservative perspective is completely valid. I'm fine with abortions in cases of the mother's life being in danger, rape, early on while the pregnancy is an embryo, and if the baby/fetus has a disease that kills it soon after birth, but I truly don't think that a families' economic situation being dire or a debilitating but not fatal disease in the baby/fetus is enough to justify the killing of a baby/fetus late in a pregnancy. P.S. - Unlike many conservatives, I do support sex education and birth control to prevent STDs, overpopulation, and possible abortions. It's nice that you're open-minded about it in certain cases; I can get behind that. As the baby is not concious in the way that a human, cat or even a beetle is, as it is technically not yet alive. It is, scientifically, an unconscious parasite. It does not have control over its own bodily functions, thoughts or respiration, so, even in late pregnancy (where it's rarely possible to safely abort a baby anyway), you wouldn't be killing it, as it isn't alive. I do agree then with North American Republics on the quality of life argument (but I suppose that can be called a slippery slope argument; ie, where would it end). We have to be careful, as going too far may lead to exterminism (think Elysium). If I may post my own slightly mad personal opinion, just really seeing how mad it is: Referenda only work where there is no misinformation, and yet there has been misinformation by the private press for generations. Therefore, if the impartiality laws applied to the BBC could be transferred to all news and web browsers that operate in the UK, then much more people, theoretically, should get actual news, rather than being drip-fed lies or a rich news-baron's opinion. Now. This is designed, so the press can still cover what they want, within the impartiality laws, and so that there can still be opinion, but it cannot be broadcast in the press as news. How extreme/wrong/authoritarian is this? |
|
Hirematia
Member State 
Ambassador to The Union of Democratic States
Posts: 452
|
Post by Hirematia on Apr 18, 2017 17:23:46 GMT
Abortion. With most political debates, the liberal perspective immediately seems better for me, although there may be some parts of the debate where conservatives have valid points. For this debate, I believe that the entire conservative perspective is completely valid. I'm fine with abortions in cases of the mother's life being in danger, rape, early on while the pregnancy is an embryo, and if the baby/fetus has a disease that kills it soon after birth, but I truly don't think that a families' economic situation being dire or a debilitating but not fatal disease in the baby/fetus is enough to justify the killing of a baby/fetus late in a pregnancy. P.S. - Unlike many conservatives, I do support sex education and birth control to prevent STDs, overpopulation, and possible abortions. It's nice that you're open-minded about it in certain cases; I can get behind that. As the baby is not concious in the way that a human, cat or even a beetle is, as it is technically not yet alive. It is, scientifically, an unconscious parasite. It does not have control over its own bodily functions, thoughts or respiration, so, even in late pregnancy (where it's rarely possible to safely abort a baby anyway), you wouldn't be killing it, as it isn't alive. I do agree then with North American Republics on the quality of life argument (but I suppose that can be called a slippery slope argument; ie, where would it end). We have to be careful, as going too far may lead to exterminism (think Elysium). If I may post my own slightly mad personal opinion, just really seeing how mad it is: Referenda only work where there is no misinformation, and yet there has been misinformation by the private press for generations. Therefore, if the impartiality laws applied to the BBC could be transferred to all news and web browsers that operate in the UK, then much more people, theoretically, should get actual news, rather than being drip-fed lies or a rich news-baron's opinion. Now. This is designed, so the press can still cover what they want, within the impartiality laws, and so that there can still be opinion, but it cannot be broadcast in the press as news. How extreme/wrong/authoritarian is this? I would be wary of such legislation, but it would not be horribly authoritarian. It sounds similar to the Fairness Doctrine that America used to have, where opposing viewpoints had to be given equal airtime on cable news. However, your idea would require the government to enforce a standard of "truth", which should be simple, until you realize that the objective truth can often only be hypothesized based off of evidence (and interpretations of the evidence can vary), and letting the government decide what is and isn't true is not typically a good idea (as we saw in the Iraq War). My opinion isn't really policy-based, but in my opinion, modern feminism and the SJW movement are self-contradicting, counterproductive, and in many cases just plain ridiculous. I admire the members who fight against things like race-based police brutality and removal of protections for transgender students (aka actual issues), but it seems like a growing portion of the movement is overly focused on supposed "microaggressions" (like people wearing Pocahontas costumes, eating non-authentic Asian food, and "manspreading"). Others in the movement seemed happy when some Berkley students rioted and attacked innocent conservatives when Milo came there to voice his opinion (about Halloween costumes, of all things), and acted smug and indifferent when a couple of adults beat up an autistic boy, who happened to support Trump, and livestreamed it over Facebook. Yes there are many well-intentioned people in the movement, but when they hand over the mic to the crazy people, their movement loses direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Harndon on Apr 19, 2017 10:29:38 GMT
I would be wary of such legislation, but it would not be horribly authoritarian. It sounds similar to the Fairness Doctrine that America used to have, where opposing viewpoints had to be given equal airtime on cable news. However, your idea would require the government to enforce a standard of "truth", which should be simple, until you realize that the objective truth can often only be hypothesized based off of evidence (and interpretations of the evidence can vary), and letting the government decide what is and isn't true is not typically a good idea (as we saw in the Iraq War). My opinion isn't really policy-based, but in my opinion, modern feminism and the SJW movement are self-contradicting, counterproductive, and in many cases just plain ridiculous. I admire the members who fight against things like race-based police brutality and removal of protections for transgender students (aka actual issues), but it seems like a growing portion of the movement is overly focused on supposed "microaggressions" (like people wearing Pocahontas costumes, eating non-authentic Asian food, and "manspreading"). Others in the movement seemed happy when some Berkley students rioted and attacked innocent conservatives when Milo came there to voice his opinion (about Halloween costumes, of all things), and acted smug and indifferent when a couple of adults beat up an autistic boy, who happened to support Trump, and livestreamed it over Facebook. Yes there are many well-intentioned people in the movement, but when they hand over the mic to the crazy people, their movement loses direction. Ah, yes, sorry. Forgot to mention that the board overlooking this would be entirely independent and its budget and neutrality and independence enshrined in law. I do, however, see your point. It's less about the truth (we can all make our own truth), and more about the facts, so if the news agencies feed the people the raw data and all the viewpoints, the people can then decide on what they believe. But, yes, we do need to be careful about how it is carried out and enforced |
|
Hirematia
Member State
Ambassador to The Union of Democratic States
Posts: 452
|
Post by Hirematia on Apr 19, 2017 11:39:36 GMT
Sounds decent enough then, just as long as enforcement would only happen in cases of blatant lying.
|
|
