«12. . .2,2092,2102,2112,2122,2132,2142,215. . .2,5142,515»
Natural rights are written into the law in the very foundation of U.S. law, the Constitution, also cited. That's the document that bars him from tossing enshrined rights on an executive whim.
That's a bizarre position to hold given your other positions on truth and knowledge. You're quite resolute in how critical it is for you to personally determine truth irrespective of consensus or authorities, yet if there is an agreed consensus on something false, the truth of the matter does not matter?
Half of that is reasonable, that God is bound by his own nature is a point I agree with. The equivalency that is drawn from that, though, still doesn't pan out-regardless of being bound by nature, a relationship with any sapient being is always going to be more complex than the single factor of 9.81 m/s^2 that a big rock is giving out, a physical force that can be reduced to a numeric value.
I suppose I can't think of a way to word this that does not come off as snarky, but it is an honest question-what makes you so special, then, to justify the self-attribution of never needing to reevaluate and never being off-course while emphasizing the capricious nature of other humans?
You're still ignoring the fact women get an escape pod from that first decision, and men do not. Sexual reproduction is not a contract. There are no express terms. It is something that is completely decided by the state, almost entirely in favor of women no less. And setting it up as a veto is likewise inapplicable. A man does not just send his genetic material into a woman's womb while she sits there passively with a veto button. It is more like both houses of Congress accidentally pass a bill, but the House of Representatives has a 9 month window in which to repeal the law unilaterally, and if they don't, then the Senate has to pay for the bill out-of-pocket.
Something as simple as Paint would presumably work well for some of the generators that I'm aware of, but this is again just a suggestion, not a demand of any kind. I'd be perfectly willing to help out with some basic editing or updating of the map in those kinds of cases, I don't really care about a title or official responsibilities.
Horatius Cocles and Slavic lechia
I would personally advice drawing your own map. This has many advantages like completely all rights to your graphics ;)
Yes, they get an escape. No, that does not change the initial consent. I'm not make any argument here that women don't have another option that men lack, they obviously do, but I'm reaffirming that women having that option does not change anything about the man's part in it.
I'm perfectly fine running with your example, it proves the point just as well, since it only reinforces that the only options are what the man/chamber already consented to, or just nothing happening at all, there is no add-on. If the Senate is passing a bill and sending it to another chamber, then it should be obvious that they've decided that that bill is either something that they want, or something that they can live with, the House/woman did not force it upon them, they made that choice. The House can then choose to approve the bill, or they can shut it down, but in neither case does the House put forward anything that the Senate did not already approve of, there are no 'amendments', they can't swap it out for another piece of legislation, they have exactly what the Senate gave them, what that Senate/man decided was worthwhile.
And let's be clear about this, the guy isn't going into the copulation not knowing that this is how the system works. Your argument almost makes it sound as if the dude is blindsided by this, that he never knew that the mother of his child could get an abortion, as if it were suddenly legalized while she was in the first trimester. Obviously not. He went ahead and had a kid with her with the full knowledge that she would be able to choose whether to keep that child or not, and knowing that beforehand, he still decided to go ahead with reproduction.
The man is walking into this with eyes open to how it works, and still making the decision-if he does not like it after the fact, he ought to have thought of that before he made that choice.
I don't really need rights to my own graphics, and especially since this is a "group project" I want people to be able to use it even if I leave the region. That's also why I think using a world map would be advantageous, because it's something everyone can relate to and use even across multiple cartographers.
Imagine saying this in a racial context, "just because we give X race more of an advantage than Y race, does not make it racially discriminatory, or that we are morally obligated to change this, either to give Y race the same advantage, or to remove the advantage from X."
Mistakes can and do happen, and you're acting like every man who has ever had sex with a woman that resulted in a pregnancy was something he consented to, which is absolutely not the case. He consented to have sex, not father a baby. Yes, he knew that was a risk, a risk that was within his power to mitigate, but that does not mean that he signed off on having that baby. He does not get any choice in the matter. A mother absolutely does, under the law, which is fundamentally discriminatory.
Are you seriously suggesting that no man on Earth has ever been blindsided by the news that his wife, girlfriend, or one-night stand is pregnant and that he is probably the father?
I guess so... I just didn't like the idea of Earth filled with similar countries, as all countries here are very similar to each other... Instead of doing Europe or US exclusively I merged together the maps of places that were used by members.
Obviously everyone here wants to remove that 'advantage', this is Right to Life after all, and we're talking about abortion.
One and the same. One cannot consent to an action and then refuse to consent to its consequences, it's like the guy that you make a bet with, but then he tries to back out of it if he loses. If he knew the risks, and he did, and chose to go forward with the action anyways, then he consented to whatever the outcome was. If he really does not want a kid, he doesn't have to go through with it. By doing so with whatever amount of risk mitigation he chooses, he is deciding quite deliberately that the action is worth the risk of a child and he signs off on that when he chooses to proceed.
Joseph is literally the only man in history who has the right to be blindsided by that. Sex makes babies, if you're having it, you should be ready for that.
1. This is why historically, marriage and family were not seen in "private" terms. Marriage/family/pro-creation had/have an intensely social character, something that's totally lost these days. That's why the "banns of marriage" were read out to the community and why a private marriage w/o witnesses was seen as invalid. Usually most people are pro-life here in the States because we go against the "right to privacy" that undergirds Roe v. Wade to begin with. The idea that procreation is between only two people, without broader context of family or society, is a very new one.
2. Men can and do "cut and run." That's why they drop off their one-night stands at the abortion clinic or feel no attachment to the baby in the mother's womb. That's not something any pro-lifer should be advocating, the opposite, in fact. No one benefits from such a set-up, not the man, the woman, and certainly not the child in the womb. There's no binding commitment to the woman who's carrying your baby and therein lies the issue.
3. You're separating procreation from the act itself, which is the reason why we have such a large contraception industry. This is why people don't feel any responsibility to their would-be offspring in the first place. It was just an "accident" or a "product of conception" that can be easily eliminated from the body, no problem. That's exactly the mindset pro-lifers can and must challenge.
New Dolgaria, Phydios, United massachusetts, and Lagrodia
In my opinion, make a post on the message boards in the Circus Maximus, or make a factbook and accept telegrams, just keep updating the factbook every time you get a new one. Do you already have a base map we can see?
Horatius Cocles and Slavic lechia
Well, nothing is stopping from someone taking only part of a country. I obviously would take France, but someone else could take, say, parts of Germany, Austria, and Italy to make the HRE. Or just the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, or the cool side of Australia, that's something that is possible. Or even if they wanted to live in the ocean. I have two fair use maps I'm looking at right now, and the bigger of the two has 12,000 land and ocean provinces, so there's lots of room for flexibility. The only thing that can't be changed obviously is the shape of the continents.
Yes, but nowhere to post it, unless I make a dedicated factbook on my country. I also wanted to get a few more people on it, because right now it's just 3.
Yes, but failing that, I'm the only one who seems willing to address the inequality by giving men a similar eject button. Somebody earlier said that with no promise of financial support that would just encourage more abortions, but that doesn't work for 2 reasons: 1) adoption exists and invalidates all economic or personal excuses for abortion; 2) perhaps if women knew that they had no promise of financial support, they wouldn't put themselves in the positions of becoming unintended mothers in the first place. You say having that on the table makes men more cautious, well the opposite is also true, that it must logically make women less cautious, so it cancels itself out. Only the alternative that is fairest, therefore, is viable.
This actually happens all the time in contract law. If you're selling me a house, and you tell me the house is fully insulated, and I buy it and find out, wait, no, it isn't insulated, then your mistake of substantive fact absolves me of my obligation to you. Likewise if you tell me that the a/c works in my car, then I find out it doesn't turn on. I'm taking that car back to the dealership.
Not if he doesn't remember the event in question, or he was assured she was on birth control. Accidents happen. "Sex makes babies" doesn't really cut it. This isn't the Stone Age.
The problem here is that all of this is aspirational. In a perfect world, maybe. But that's not how real human beings act in practice. You're not going to be able to go into a pulpit and convince everyone in the world to desist from premarital intercourse and contraception. It's just not going to happen. Even in the most conservative and/or historically Catholic countries in the world (like Ireland, once upon a time) it doesn't happen.
Adoption does not cancel out all economic excuses for abortion. Obviously abortion is fundamentally wrong on moral grounds, but if we're just talking about the economics of it, adoption requires one to complete the pregnancy, which can have both medical costs and opportunity costs if it prevents you from working during the later stages. If we want to talk about the point at which male caution vs. female caution cancels out in a situation in which the legality of abortion is assumed, the male caution is pretty much guaranteed to be the stronger factor. Removing the promise of financial support probably will make women moderately more cautious about possible pregnancies, but with abortion still there as the 'out' option, it is not a significant brake on behavior. On the male side, by contrast, getting rid of the financial obligation takes away pretty much the only real caution they had for avoiding an unintended child, and they're free to go hog wild.
It isn't like we haven't seen this sort of thing play out. Men both are and long have been the sex that wants sex, and women the gatekeepers of that intercourse. The birth control boom and the sexual revolution showed clearly that when that gate goes down and casual sex becomes available without commitment, men will go all-in for it and if they're not tied down, bolt at the first sign of trouble. Single motherhood rates have gone from 24% for black families in 1965 to 77.3% in 2015, and white families from 3.1% to 30%. Removing the last major barrier to further such behavior from men most certainly will not cancel itself out, only further accelerate the process.
That's plainly fraud, blatantly lying about the circumstances, an entirely different situation. The man in this situation is going in with full knowledge of the risk, it is more equivalent to buying a used car without a warranty from a guy who plainly says that the check engine light is on and its running pretty rough, then trying to back out if it dies a couple days later. You knew what you were getting into when you got it.
If he doesn't remember the event in question, that's indicative of some serious mistakes being made beyond the basics of the reproductive decision. For the assurance of birth control, there's no magic bullet at preventing pregnancy outside of abstinence, even if one assumes perfect honesty (which one really never should assume.) Birth control mitigates the risk of pregnancy, but it does not eliminate it, he still went into the decision accepting that risk. Accidents do happen in the sense that things happen that you did not expect, but one cannot exactly 'accidentally' deliver sperm to egg, we're not talking about tripping and spilling a drink, there's a consciously chosen action to make that happen, and one assumes the risk when making that choice.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and United massachusetts
Of course it's Kamala.
Uggggggghhh.
Worst timeline.
I've been operating by treating them as by and large the same position, so if you want to do both, I'd support that.
Haven't we already known that about the timeline since 1 January 2020 at 00:01? XD
I campaigned on strong balance of powers, so I'd be a bit in a bind if I accepted an executive post eheh. Just cartographer for now is fine. But of course, as an imaginary Frenchman, the temptation to be la Ministre de Culture is strong.
Horatius Cocles and United massachusetts
We're gonna have the first female President be the woman who jump-started her political career by sleeping with a married man more than twice her age to get political appointments.
You have to love the just wonderful combination of stupid radical and corrupt establishment. You can simultaneously get some so pro-abortion that she'll try to jail journalists and so anti-gun that she'll openly call for confiscation by executive order, but if you were hoping for one of the bright sides of liberalism, you're instead gonna get someone who laughed about smoking weed while throwing everyone else in jail for it, blocked evidence to exonerate a guy on death row, and literally defied federal judges in order to keep people locked up beyond their sentences so the state could use them for $2 per day labour.
It would have been gosh darn hard to pick someone worse.
Isn't that what insurance is for?
This is just extremely sexist and chauvinistic thinking. Against both women and men. Men and women are equal, and should share equal responsibility. I think it's false to say that one wants to engage in sexual intercourse more than the other.
Wrong; mutual mistake of fact is a defense plainly distinct from fraud.
This is also clearly false. Men don't always go in with no warranty. Often they have every assurance to the contrary. Not always--sometimes it's just assumed--but oftentimes they ask and get an answer that turns out to be false, unbeknownst to both parties.
You're once again acting like you've never met another, living-breathing human being before.
That is the legal definition of an accident, yes.
No, but intercourse and conception are two completely different (if sometimes interrelated) processes. It is perfectly common for conception to be both unintended and unexpected.
And this is why I think it's foolish to count Trump out before the contest has even started. National polls mean nothing, and state polls are wildly inconsistent. In a state-by-state contest in the electoral college, with high turnout on his side and lowish turnout for the anti-black Biden/Kamala ticket, I think you can't just look at Trump's twitter account and assume he's the underdog. He's got incumbent advantage, money out the wazoo, a combative campaigning style, a strong ground team built up over four years, and a team of opponents unintentionally doing everything in their power to help him. Trump on the campaign trail is much stronger than Trump in a press conference arguing with reporters over face masks.
«12. . .2,2092,2102,2112,2122,2132,2142,215. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
