Which site rule did you break? I can file a report, if it'll make you feel better. :)
Site rules here for your reference: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044
Of course, seems a little self-destructive to campaign for your own banning, and I suspect the moderators not do work they don't have to. If you feel like you ought to have been banned, then you always have the option of self-banning. Just walk away, and CTE.
I'd be more inclined to self-reflection though. Ask yourself why you think you ought to have been banned, and ask yourself why you're raising the topic now. Maybe this is related to some deeper sense of unhappiness and self-esteem?
It was a "late night thought" and those in my case are similar to "drunk texting". People here that know me since the beggining know that, but I guess I should explain.
They usually only ban after a continuous series of rule breaking behaviors. Part of that is because of unofficial warnings and the fact that basically records of official warnings are basically removed after six months (I think)
Somewhat true. You do get warnings is what I know. I did.
Weirdest question: What are three things you would want your students to know about George Washington?
They also quizzed me heavily on content.
What the heck is that question supposed to be?
Kinda weird question when you're interviewing to become a proctologist*.
(*I may be making assumptions here)
I guess though my list would be:
1) The lyrics and tune of the song One Last Time from the second act of Hamilton.
2) He created his own dog breed.
3) He wasn't a particularly successful British commander, losing against the French in Ohio. He may also have done some things after he left the British army.
To be honest, Alabama's measure would have been way better, more moral, and more effective if it were coupled with expanded social programmes. Alabama's approach doesn't help much, even if I like the text that they passed.
Agreed. To be truly pro-life, we must address the reasons women turn to abortion as well. It usually isn't out of love for abortion. If we ban abortion but do nothing to help the women who lose their crisis pregnancy solution, we are hypocrites, and we are better called "pro-birth" than "pro-life".
Oh hey, a turtle sighting! Been a while since seen you in my other regions, nice that you're floating gently past.
I recommend opening umbrellas though. Turtle pee ain't nice stuff. Don't be fooled by what end of the turtle it comes out of either.
I think it's also essential to acknowledge that there's also such a thing as a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Clearly we might argue that the unborn baby's right to life may be greater than that right, but simply denying that the right to bodily autonomy exists is going to be a real sticking point for many hovering in the middle of the argument.
From my point of view, I think abortion should exist, but under limited circumstances, with greater checks and measures, and only to much earlier gestations than currently allowed in most countries. My own viewpoint is that once a fetus has developed any sort of nervous system, it is a living being rather than a bundle of fetal tissue. I'm aware that doesn't sit well with many people in RTL, who prefer to view conception as the start of life, and to ban abortion entirely, but I personally can't see any reason to see conception as the start of life that isn't based on religious authority or general axiom.
I find it disturbing that no one, as far as I know, has taken note/issue with the ridiculously early campaign season for the Democratic primaries.
As a reference point: the first debate will be held in late June and there are already 22 candidates (last I heard) whereas even the previously record-breaking Republican field in 2015 had no debates until August. In 2012 there were no candidates declared until May and in 2016 there were no candidates before late March. As of May 17 in 2015 there were only 6 declared Republicans out of an eventual 17 and Trump himself didn't enter until June 16 and 4 candidates entered after the end of June. The bottom line is: never before have so many candidates entered so early, or even close. The normal, traditional dates for starting a campaign are May-July and it looks as though almost no candidates for the Democrats will be declaring in that timeline.
Why does this matter? First, money. Second, I prefer to no have the airwaves clogged with political campaigning without end. Third, everyone breaths a sigh of relief when the Presidential election is finally done with and the ads etc cease and now it looks as though strong precedent will be set to campaign for an entire 2 years before the actual election. I honestly can think of any substantial, good reason to let this happen, but no one is speaking up instead they are going along with it!
You ought to look into Secular Pro-Life's material. I love them for their amazing work in showing that abortion is not a religious issue. Pro-Life Humanists is another good group.
"What is the Unborn? A Case for Biological Humanity from Fertilization"
"If the unborn is not human, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary. It would be no different from having a mole removed or a tooth pulled. But if the unborn is human, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate."
"A Secular Case Against Abortion"
"Unlike other cells containing human DNA – sperm, ovum and skin cells, for instance – the newly fertilized embryo has complete inherent capacity to propel itself through all stages of human development, providing adequate nutrition and protection is maintained."
General information: https://www.secularprolife.org/abortion
Tagging me when RTL has no embassy with TNP. Wao
But yes, Bel Edwards knows what's up.
As a humanist myself, I think of "humanity" being a binary state to be somewhat silly. A baby is extremely human. A clever dog less so, but still sharing many of the qualities that render a human life precious. A fertilised ovum, not so much. Given the choice between destroying a baby and a dog, and I choose to destroy the dog. Given the choice between destroying a single cell fertilised ovum and a dog, I choose to destroy the single-cell fertilsed ovum.
Similar thought experiments:
If a woman will die if she does not have an early abortion, then that's one life for one life. Which life is worth more? I'd say that of a completed human being is worth more than that of a single fertilised cell, or even a multiplied bundle of cells that has no mind. Switch dying for "losing bodily autonomy", and it's still a grey area to me.
For me, the sliding scale of morality is part of what it means to be non-theist.
I agree that morality -- and thus abortion -- is absolutely something that atheists can and should form positions on. However, in the absence of irrefutable axioms given by higher authority, we have to exercise our own human judgement as to what is right and wrong.
To me, it seems offensive to my morality to say that a fertilised ovum's life carries the same weight of importance as that of a human baby with self-awareness.