• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

For whom will/would you vote?


  • Total voters
    646
  • Poll closed .

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
I admit there's a problem with the injured party being the judge/jury, but I'm still arguing court packing would be justified.

Frankly, I'm more interested in an end to the Electoral College and the Senate becoming a representative body than I am interested in Supreme Court retribution.
Can't say that I share the sentiment, I think the electoral college is essential for keeping the union of states fair and balanced in terms of power dynamics, although I am aware of your preference of the popular vote. An argument for another time, no doubt.
 

x65943

hunger games round 29 big booba winner
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,194
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
25,982
Country
United States
I would rather we keep electoral college, but make each state's EVs proportional.

I ran this simulation before and Bush would have still won 2000, but Trump would have lost 2016.

I just don't like where no matter what I vote my vote goes to simple majority winner of my state.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,543
Trophies
2
Location
duel acadamia
XP
5,704
Country
United States
wrong thread?
I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't
I don't think having any sort of religious motivation is a pre-requisite for having a pro-life stance. In fact, using scripture to support that kind of stance detracts from it. There are perfectly acceptable scientific arguments for why it should be restricted to a very specific, narrow set of cases. I believe the mantra goes like this: "legal, safe and rare".
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,693
Country
United States
I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't

ah my bad, missed some posts. oh, i had greg muted. that's why.
 
Last edited by omgcat,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I would rather we keep electoral college, but make each state's EVs proportional.

I ran this simulation before and Bush would have still won 2000, but Trump would have lost 2016.

I just don't like where no matter what I vote my vote goes to simple majority winner of my state.
If Bush would have won in 2000, despite receiving fewer votes, it's still a flawed system. We can save that conversation for another day though.

I will say we can probably all agree that how states allocate electoral votes should be consistent (I'm talking to you Nebraska and Maine).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't think having any sort of religious motivation is a pre-requisite for having a pro-life stance. In fact, using scripture to support that kind of stance detracts from it. There are perfectly acceptable scientific arguments for why it should be restricted to a very specific, narrow set of cases. I believe the mantra goes like this: "legal, safe and rare".
Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,693
Country
United States
Can't say that I share the sentiment, I think the electoral college is essential for keeping the union of states fair and balanced in terms of power dynamics, although I am aware of your preference of the popular vote. An argument for another time, no doubt.

i'm ok with the electoral college staying, as long as the house is adjusted to match demographics. as it stands now, the house is supposed to match the power of population, while the senate balances that out by having all states have equal power. the framers pegged reps at 30,000 per rep, and planned for the house to grow as the populations grew. as of now, the united states has 1 rep for every 200,000 people. the house was capped at 435 in 1911, back when our population was 1/3 of what it is now. this dilutes the power of more populous states, breaking the system that the constitutional framers had in mind. this cedes most of the power to much less populated states, thus leading to tyranny of the minority. A couple ways to fix this would be to increase the number of reps to 593 as we could host the house of rep online, or remove the electoral college to even the power out. otherwise we might as well throw out our democracy all together, since it doesn't matter, as the will of the whole population is being ignored.
 
Last edited by omgcat,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.
The issue of abortion sits at the intersection of biology, philosophy and ethics - if it was as simple as "God said so" versus "I don't believe in God", we wouldn't have a whole field of bioethics. The discussion is entirely off-topic, but since you've never heard of that kind of stance before, I'll give you a quick, rough rundown.

Let's make a safe assumption that we value life, and as per the generally accepted medical standard we want to do no harm, or least harm. I think that's pretty universal and generally unobjectionable.

With that groundwork laid out we have to define whether we're dealing with one life or multiple lives. At conception the DNA of the mother and the father recombines into a new, unique strain of DNA. It is different than that of the father or the mother. It is also growing via rapid cell division, so it is exhibiting the characteristics of a living organism. The DNA is, undoubtedly, human in origin, so we are talking about a separate human entity at an early stage of development - this is separate from the discussion regarding personhood, more on that later.

Now that we've assessed that life is valuable and that the fertilised egg is a form of human life, we have to tackle viability. A fertilised egg, by itself, is not viable - it is not uncommon for women to expel a fertilised egg as it has failed to nest and as such cannot develop any further. With or without our intervention this life is destined to die. With that in mind, the earliest point of viability we can possibly consider would be the moment the egg is nested and pregnancy proper has begun. That's the point when the fertilised zygote had undergone cell division, progressed past the blastula stage and is beginning to form a fetus. That kind of human life is viable - at that point, if uninterrupted, the new life will continue to exist as long as it is provided nutrients. It cannot gather nutrients independently, but neither does a person in a coma and we don't consider those patients to be non-human, so we can scratch that objection.

Next we have the problem of sentience. An often-mentioned objection is that a fetus lacks personhood because it is not sentient. This, in my opinion, is an oversimplification of the matter. Sentience does not grant personhood - if it did, you could reasonably argue that a person in a coma, or someone who is merely asleep, temporarily lost their personhood as they are not conscious and they're not responding to external stimuli, thus they're not exhibiting signs of sentience - that's obviously ridiculous. Personhood is a subject of vigorous debate, there is no universal agreement on what grants it other than "our moral standard at any given time" which is relative. It can be easily argued that if it is in fact sentience that grants it then a fetus has as much right to achieve it as a person in a coma has a right to regain it. This is especially relevant to fetuses that have already developed a brain and show signs of a functioning nervous system.

There's also the problem of bodily autonomy. We have already arrived at the conclusion that a fetus consists of cells that are unique in nature, it is a separate entity from the mother on a cellular level. Depending on the stage of development, there may be multiple organs in the fetus that are separate also, maybe even the brain, which leads to the aforementioned troubling issues in regards to consciousness and sentience. As such, it isn't so much a decision in regards to one's own body, but rather in regards to another body that is temporarily connected to the mother. This shifts the paradigm quite a bit. It is akin to a situation where conjoined twins share vital organs - although they are joined together without mutual consent, separating them would undoubtedly be considered as killing one of them. Naturally they may come to an agreement and wish to be separated regardless, but a fetus lacks this ability, more on that later. Point being, one twin cannot choose to remove the other against their will - that would be murder.

We've established a couple of things - we are dealing with a life form, that life form is human in origin and unique, it is separate from the mother rather than an integral part of the mother's body, depending on the stage of development it may or may not be sentient. We've also established that the fetus cannot consent to being removed - cases where an individual cannot give consent due to their age, disability or a variety of other factors are accounted for in law. It is not beyond the pale to think that the government can step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves - in fact, it does so all the time. As such, the government wouldn't be legislating what a woman can or can't do with her uterus - we're not interested in that from this perspective. Rather, the government's interest would be what she can or can't do to the human life inside of said uterus, which didn't choose to be inside of it anyway and is there either as a direct consequence of the mother's actions *or* as a result of rape. We can consider the former as a matter of personal responsibility, we cannot permit the latter due to lack of consent.

With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die) and rape (lack of consent). In other cases, protection of human life being of utmost importance, you could argue that the fetus requires some form of legal protection up until it can be separated from the mother without killing it, which is admittedly a burden and inconvenience for the mother, but is consistent with our findings. Perhaps pending some negotiation we could arrive at a mutually acceptable cut-off period that minimises loss of life.

In regards to protecting the mother's life I would even go as far as to say that mothers who are seriously suicidal due to their unwanted pregnancy could fall into the permissable category as mental health is as important as physical health. If the possibility of suicide is verifiably high, it is more ethical to save one rather than lose both.

No bible thumping in this train of thought, just a logical progression. Naturally this is very broad, it's a huge topic and I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but it might be a new perspective you haven't seen before. If there is ever a thread specifically about this then maybe we'll argue about the finer points. For now let's limit ourselves to the election, I hope you enjoyed the mental exercise.
 

RandomUser

Rosalina in Plush Form
Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
967
Trophies
1
XP
1,042
Country
United States
It's about retribution, not revenge.

If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.
Not unless your dog is on your neighbor's property, then that is on you, and therefor forfeit the right to retribution for failure to keep your dog contained. Also the neighbor won't face consequences because of this. Then again I guess it depends on the state.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
Not unless your dog is on your neighbor's property, then that is on you, and therefor forfeit the right to retribution for failure to keep your dog contained. Also the neighbor won't face consequences because of this. Then again I guess it depends on the state.
Uh, sure, but that wasn't exactly the point.
 

x65943

hunger games round 29 big booba winner
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,194
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
25,982
Country
United States
If Bush would have won in 2000, despite receiving fewer votes, it's still a flawed system. We can save that conversation for another day though.

I will say we can probably all agree that how states allocate electoral votes should be consistent (I'm talking to you Nebraska and Maine).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.
I think calling it flawed is subjective. Depends on your goal.

In any case proportional EV is very close to popular vote and would be a good compromise. Would still give smaller states a say but without having to jump over the giant hurdle of constitutional amendment.

The interstate compact is another interesting option that I would take over our current system.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
The issue of abortion sits at the intersection of biology, philosophy and ethics - if it was as simple as "God said so" versus "I don't believe in God", we wouldn't have a whole field of bioethics. The discussion is entirely off-topic, but since you've never heard of that kind of stance before, I'll give you a quick, rough rundown.

Let's make a safe assumption that we value life, and as per the generally accepted medical standard we want to do no harm, or least harm. I think that's pretty universal and generally unobjectionable.

With that groundwork laid out we have to define whether we're dealing with one life or multiple lives. At conception the DNA of the mother and the father recombines into a new, unique strain of DNA. It is different than that of the father or the mother. It is also growing via rapid cell division, so it is exhibiting the characteristics of a living organism. The DNA is, undoubtedly, human in origin, so we are talking about a separate human entity at an early stage of development - this is separate from the discussion regarding personhood, more on that later.

Now that we've assessed that life is valuable and that the fertilised egg is a form of human life, we have to tackle viability. A fertilised egg, by itself, is not viable - it is not uncommon for women to expel a fertilised egg as it has failed to nest and as such cannot develop any further. With or without our intervention this life is destined to die. With that in mind, the earliest point of viability we can possibly consider would be the moment the egg is nested and pregnancy proper has begun. That's the point when the fertilised zygote had undergone cell division, progressed past the blastula stage and is beginning to form a fetus. That kind of human life is viable - at that point, if uninterrupted, the new life will continue to exist as long as it is provided nutrients. It cannot gather nutrients independently, but neither does a person in a coma and we don't consider those patients to be non-human, so we can scratch that objection.

Next we have the problem of sentience. An often-mentioned objection is that a fetus lacks personhood because it is not sentient. This, in my opinion, is an oversimplification of the matter. Sentience does not grant personhood - if it did, you could reasonably argue that a person in a coma, or someone who is merely asleep, temporarily lost their personhood as they are not conscious and they're not responding to external stimuli, thus not exhibiting signs of sentience - that's obviously ridiculous. Personhood is a subject of vigorous debate, there is no universal agreement on what grants it other than "our moral standard at any given time" which is relative. It can be easily argued that if it is in fact sentience that grants it then a fetus has as much right to achieve it as a person in a coma has a right to regain it. This is especially relevant to fetuses that have already developed a brain and show signs of a functioning nervous system.

There's also the problem of bodily autonomy. We have already arrived at the conclusion that a fetus consists of cells that are unique in nature, it is a separate entity from the mother on a cellular level. Depending on the stage of development, there may be multiple organs in the fetus that are separate also, maybe even the brain, which leads to the aforementioned troubling issues in regards to consciousness and sentience. As such, it isn't so much a decision in regards to one's own body, but rather in regards to another body that is temporarily connected to the mother. This shifts the paradigm quite a bit. It is akin to a situation where conjoined twins share vital organs - although they are joined together without mutual consent, separating them would undoubtedly be considered as killing one of them. Naturally they may come to an agreement and wish to be separated regardless, but a fetus lacks this ability, more on that later. Point being, one twin cannot choose to remove the other against their will - that would be murder.

We've established s couple of things - we are dealing with a life form, that life form is human in origin and unique, it is separate from the mother rather than an integral part of the mother's body, depending on the stage of development it may or may not be sentient. We've also established that the fetus cannot consent to being removed - cases where an individual cannot give consent due to their age, disability or a variety of other factors are accounted for in law. It is not beyond the pale to think that the government can step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves - in fact, it does so all the time. As such, the government wouldn't be legislating what a woman can or can't do with her uterus - we're not interested in that from this perspective. Rather, the government's interest would be what she can or can't do to the human life inside of said uterus, which didn't choose to be inside of it anyway and is there either as a direct consequence of the mother's actions *or* as a result of rape. We can consider the former as a matter of personal responsibility, we cannot permit the latter due to lack of consent.

With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die) and rape (lack of consent). In other cases, protection of human life being of utmost importance, you could argue that the fetus requires some form of legal protection up until it can be separated from the mother without killing it, which is admittedly a burden and inconvenience for the mother, but is consistent with our findings. Perhaps pending some negotiation we could arrive at a mutually acceptable cut-off period that minimises loss of life.

In regards to protecting the mother's life I would even go as far that mothers who are seriously suicidal due to their unwanted pregnancy could fall into the permissable category as mental health is as important as physical health. If the possibility of suicide is verifiably high, it is more ethical to save one rather than lose both.

No bible thumping in this train of thought, just a logical progression. Naturally this is very broad, it's a huge topic and I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but it might be a new perspective you haven't seen before. If there is ever a thread specifically about this then maybe we'll argue about the finer points. For now let's limit ourselves to the election, I hope you enjoyed the mental exercise.
Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.

As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.
 

x65943

hunger games round 29 big booba winner
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,194
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
25,982
Country
United States
Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.

As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.
What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?

And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I think calling it flawed is subjective. Depends on your goal.

In any case proportional EV is very close to popular vote and would be a good compromise. Would still give smaller states a say but without having to jump over the giant hurdle of constitutional amendment.

The interstate compact is another interesting option that I would take over our current system.
My goal is for the president to be democratically elected. My goal is for everybody's vote to count. What's your goal?

Proportional EV distribution is better than what we have, but the whole EC system should just be eliminated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?

And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?
A pregnancy isn't nothing, so I agree with these things. A right to bodily autonomy goes both ways. A woman cannot and should not be forced to carry a pregnancy, and she cannot and should not be forced to terminate a pregnancy.
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,693
Country
United States
What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?

And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?

it's a heftier sentence because the child counts as property/an extension of the body. this has historical precedence in law and in the bible. It is the same as cutting off a persons limb, dismemberment carries heavier sentences. for particular jurisdictions, the death of a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, which is interesting. in the end though, the murderer took away the woman's ability to choose to give birth, and her total autonomy.

killing someone is a crime, killing AND dismembering someone carries heavier penalties. in my opinion the murder of a pregnant woman counts as murder and dismemberment, but i wouldn't go as far as calling it double homicide.
 
Last edited by omgcat,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.

As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.
If sentience is your defining characteristic then there is a point when a fetus becomes sentient, it doesn't gain that ability upon exiting the vagina, it already has it. Vaginas are great, but they are not magical. Regardless, the argument revolved around the value of human life, as opposed to sentience - both are acceptable, but presence of life is not contingent on verifiability of personhood. Again, vigorously debated subject.

In regards to bodily autonomy, the mother has as much right to her own bodily autonomy as the fetus does to its own, at least in this framework. Moreover, the conjoined twin argument stands - the fetus was very much "born that way", it didn't ask to come into existence. In fact, in a gross majority of cases the mother was a consenting and active participant in creating it, be it intentionally or unintentionally, so you could argue that between the two, the mother carries more blame for the situation.

In regards to expelling said fetus, to use a humorous analogy, it is permissable to evict a tenant who doesn't pay rent, unless there's a raging fire outside of your house that will kill the tenant - I'm pretty sure they lack the ability to breathe fire and it would be more ethical to wait until it is safe outside and evicting your tenant doesn't equate to killing them. Sure, it's your house, but you're still pushing another human into a blaze. If there are legal circumstances wherein it is illegal to evict a tenant, I find it hard to justify removing all limitations in regards to "evicting" a fetus, regardless of the "ownership" of the uterus. Sex has consequences, much like elections.

Topic for another time, glad that you took the time to read it. I apologise if it's slapped together, I am also on my phone. :lol:
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
If sentience is your defining characteristic then there is a point when a fetus becomes sentient, it doesn't gain that ability upon exiting the vagina, it already has it. Vaginas are great, but they are not magical. Regardless, the argument revolved around the value of human life, as opposed to sentience - both are acceptable, but presence of life is not contingent on verifiability of personhood. Again, vigorously debated subject.

In regards to bodily autonomy, the mother has as much right to her own bodily autonomy as the fetus does to its own, at least in this framework. Moreover, the conjoined twin argument stands - the fetus was very much "born that way", it didn't ask to come into existence. In fact, in a gross majority of cases the mother was a consenting and active participant in creating it, be it intentionally or unintentionally, so you could argue that between the two, the mother carries more blame for the situation.

In regards to expelling said fetus, to use a humorous analogy, it is permissable to evict a tenant who doesn't pay rent, unless there's a raging fire outside of your house that will kill the tenant - I'm pretty sure he lacks the ability to breathe fire. Sure, it's your house, but you still pushed a man into a blaze. If there are legal circumstances wherein it is illegal to evict a tenant, I find it hard to justify removing all limitations in regards to "evicting" a fetus, regardless of the "ownership" of the uterus. Sex has consequences, much like elections.

Topic for another time, glad that you took the time to read it. I apologise if it's slapped together, I am also on my phone. :lol:
I'm unaware of a time when a fetus becomes sentient. For much of the time, it doesn't even have a brain. We treat birth as a "magical" time because that's the separation between the baby and the mother (i.e. when the baby becomes bodily autonomous). The time at which a fetus can become autonomous can be the difference between an abortion and a birth. To summarize, birth has nothing to do with sentience.

While a fetus is not a person (without believing in a soul), it also doesn't matter when taking into account a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

You say a fetus has a right to its bodily autonomy, and it would if it had any. The problem is it doesn't have any.
 
Last edited by Lacius,
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User

x65943

hunger games round 29 big booba winner
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,194
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
25,982
Country
United States
My goal is for the president to be democratically elected. My goal is for everybody's vote to count. What's your goal?

Proportional EV distribution is better than what we have, but the whole EC system should just be eliminated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


A pregnancy isn't nothing, so I agree with these things. A right to bodily autonomy goes both ways. A woman cannot and should not be forced to carry a pregnancy, and she cannot and should not be forced to terminate a pregnancy.
In proportional EV everyone's vote would count with a slight emphasis on rural states that would otherwise be looked over. Although in the end it would be a pretty small effect so not sure whether it's really worthwhile.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
In proportional EV everyone's vote would count with a slight emphasis on rural states that would otherwise be looked over. Although in the end it would be a pretty small effect so not sure whether it's really worthwhile.
No, not everyone's vote would count in proportional EV. With direct voting, rural states aren't looked over. Everyone's vote counts equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

x65943

hunger games round 29 big booba winner
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,194
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
25,982
Country
United States
No, not everyone's vote would count in proportional EV. With direct voting, rural states aren't looked over. Everyone's vote counts equally.
They all wouldn't count exactly the same, but they would all count
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Just a couple of guys taking their manatee out for some fresh air, why you have to molest them?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Stupid Chinese shop switched their shipping company and this one is slooooooow.
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    STOP BUYING CHINESE CRAP THEN
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    SUPPORT LOCAL PRODUCTS, MAKE REVOLUTION
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THEY KEEP REMOVING LOCAL SHIt AND REPLACING WItH INFERIOR CHINESE CRAP
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THATS WHY MY PARTNER CANT GET A GOOTWEAR HIS SIZE ANYMORE
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    HE HAS BIG FOOT AND BIG DUCK
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    d*ck i mean*
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    lol
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Mkay.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I just ordered another package from China just to spite you.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Communism lol
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    OUR products
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @LeoTCK actually good quality products are dying out because they can't compete with dropshipped chinese crap
    +2
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    @LeoTCK is your partner the sascrotch or smth?
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Good morning
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Out of nowhere I got several scars on my forearm and part of my arm and it really itches.
  • AdRoz78 @ AdRoz78:
    Hey, I bought a modchip today and it says "New 2040plus" in the top left corner. Is this a legit chip or was I scammed?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    @AdRoz78 start a thread and post a photo of the chip.
    +2
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Yawn
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    and good morning everyone
    S @ salazarcosplay: and good morning everyone