Edward

A just society would not blindly murder babies in masses and try to cover it up by claiming it's something else. Most of the aborted "fetus" arms, legs, and other parts of their bodies are shown after the abortion, which means it was a baby before it was murder, not a fetus, or else it wouldn't have had those baby parts. Can any abortion advocate disclaim this?

This is a issue that isn't usually talked about. I do not want my opinion to interfere with what you're going to say. So I will wait to comment.

Hey, welcome to Orbis! Wish you the best of luck in your being here. I will only advise to invest in military(while also investing in economics), to avoid raids and halting of your growth. Although the expenses of military lower your revenue, it is worth it, to not only avoid raiders, but to stand the test of time. Good luck in Rose, I'm certain they have guides and money to assist your nation.

So how do we decide who lives and who dies? And how do you determine how many people are dying everyday, to replace them? And by how many people should we replace them? And also, since you seem to know about overpopulation and whatnot, tell me what is the exact number of people we can have in the world, before we reach the Earth's capacity? What is our current resources, how much have we used, and how much left for us to use, before we run out of them, completely? The current generation and future generation might as well not have children, honestly. Because we're at 7 billion. Isn't that many people for you? And since you're concerned about resources, shouldn't we preserve them for ourselves, and kill the others off so they won't make us use up the resources faster?

Since we are concerned about overpopulation, I guess no more starting a family for everybody, simply because there are billions of people in this world. Once everyone dies off, then we can start having families in again. Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense.

Wow, I'm surprise to see this many comments, and I read all sides and comprehended them. I was on a long road trip back to my home state and checked on the forum a few times, but couldn't comment. But let me say some things: There are people commenting that it is the woman who is carrying the baby, or something along that line. So because she's carrying the baby, she has the last say with what she does with the baby? But wasn't it the man who got her pregnant in the first place? Shouldn't he the one who has the final say? In a relationship, the man and the woman should have a say. You know, it's easy for people to say let's stop talking about abortion, or that it is not your say in what a woman does with her body. But that's what makes us people and a society. We've got to be vigilant. We have to confront issues and not sit silently to them! If we should stop talking about abortion, then we should stop talking about drunk driving, then we should stop talking about what one intoxicate in his/her body. Whatever people try to make abortion seem like, it is murder! I've seen videos and pictures, on YouTube and google. I've seen the baby hands, legs, and other parts of it. That just show you how that it was a baby, and that it was murder! Final point I want to make is that most people abort their child because of economic condition. I had an argument with my high school teacher who supported abortion and made the case about the economic condition women face. My question is...why didn't the boy and the girl focused on their school....why didn't them examine their own condition before trying to take care of another? Why are we trying to make excuses for them? Why weren't they responsible? If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex! Pretty simple! But don't make society pay the cost of your aborting of your child! Ronald Reagan quote certainly hit the nail on the head when he said: 'I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.' I guess their parents should had aborted them for the same excuses they are making today.

One of the arguments against abortion that it is a "woman's body" and that she has a "woman right." But it seems like people have forgotten that it is our body but the government does not allow for consuming drugs and is in a never-ending "war on drug." Should we violate the drug laws, we're imprison for months, if not years. It is our body but we can't smoke marijuana, though that is changing slowly. It is our body, but we can't consume alcohol until we're 21. It is our body, but parents children are required to be vaccinated. It is our body, but we have to adhere to health regulations. It is our body, but we can't do many things with it. My point is, the government has some control over our body, which makes women body no different. If we want to advocate for a woman's body, then we ought to do the same for a man's body, a child's body, and a animal's body. Another argument I hear is that why bring a baby into this world if we won't be able to care for it, feed it, educate it, and more. While this makes sense, let's not forget that there are people currently in those conditions, and although their condition is bad, it is minimal. Since we seem to want to abort a baby because of the reasons given, then those who are facing those same reasons should kill themselves. Is that what we're trying to say? Also, if people don't want babies, they ought not to engage in those acts that will lead to the female being pregnant, unless they are positioned to have one. We're pretty much giving teens (and women I should say) free pass and letting them abort their baby simply because they are not 'ready' to care for one. I've been in a relationship, but I've not engage in sexual intercourse of any kind, because one, it is not the only means to show our love for each other, and two, I'm not ready for a baby, therefore, I want to avoid getting my girlfriend pregnancy. Now if I'm done with college and I have a career, and my wife and I are able to care for each other, we will consider starting a family. But we ought to first examine our condition. But most high school girls and boys (even middle school) are not thinking about this and the girl winds up pregnant, which leaves two things to happen, the "father" leaves (some stay), and the girl and her family get in a dispute and she either keep the baby or think about aborting the baby. I really did not want to touch on this one, but a major argument that I hear is that why should a woman who is raped be forced to carry her rapist baby? This is perhaps the strongest case abortion advocates have, I'd admit that. I guess I can say rape is unethical, but so is taking another life, or does that life not matter, simply because it cannot speak for itself? Why should the child have to pay the ultimate price? It is important to note that a woman does not have to carry the baby, she can if she wants, but there are alternatives to abortion, like adoption. People are willing to adopt children and I rather have that than hearing a baby aborted, and I think that is rather reasonable than a woman aborting a child. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What do you think? I'm willing to engage in a meaningful debate.

Democracy as being able to move up the ranks and hold a leadership position. Democracy as being able to make decisions, based on how the constitution is set up, such as council or direct democracy (although I should say direct democracy is horrible).

That's what people with nothing else to say do. Instead of engaging with you, they start attacking you! Did you notice Eos is ranked #34 and the alliance he is in is ranked #36...? So much for a person who wants to bash another alliance.

Umm...okay! I think the bear (or dog, in this case) poked himself by commenting. Had he not commented, none of this would have happened. But it seems like he's getting into his feelings. What trouble is awaiting me...if I may ask? I think you're the one who don't want any trouble.

I'm not getting your logical? How exactly has atheism infected politics and stopped people from voting?

Sheepy, you offered the most constructive response. Perhaps we do not need mandatory voting so people like know nothing Joe votes out of popularity based on who they heard about or seen on the ballot first. This is not healthy for democracy. I've seen first hand people who try to engage in discussions with me or be posting stuff on Facebook when they do not know a thing or two about politics, so this point of yours is very valid. I 100% agree with you that we should make Election Day a weekend, which will give more people (educated or not), the chance to vote. This will increase the voting turnout rate, as most people do want to vote, but because of demanding schedule, they do not have time to vote. I concede to your point that more than two parties leads to unstable government, European countries loose coalitions being prime example.

Dude, you can calm down! No need to get all mad over this little thing. You ought not to reply to post if you're like this.

We have one of the lowest voter turnout rate in the developed world and big money are buying our politicians. We have a two party system that prevents other parties from playing a pivotal role. Not only that, but we are a free rider society - those who enjoy the benefits from activities without paying the costs of participation (things like public education, universal healthcare, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc. came as the result of political participation). Also, people complain about the condition of the country and how the nation's leaders are cynical, yet, on election day, most do not participate. They have their reasons for this though, including work, family, school, and more, all of which prevent them from taking part in one of the most political participation in a democracy. In order to restore faith in our democracy, restore the American dream, get big money out of politics, reclaim our government, and make America the once great country most nations looked up to, should we institute mandatory voting and make election day a holiday? We can't try spreading democracy across the globe if we're not living up to our own ideals.

Democracy isn't waiting around all day before taking action. I think this is the impression all of you are getting. Democracy can function. Democracy can function even with deadlines and acting while awaiting final decisions. I think I should have made it clear that I'm not advocating for direct democracy - that is just a horrible idea. What I'm advocating for is representative democracy and with this function, you can set rules and regulation, and democracy will still exist. ELPINCHAZo, I will do your suggestion of collecting data. The United States form of government is representative democracy. Recently Obama and Iran made some nuclear deal. By rules governing the United States, the Senate has 60 days to review it. That's a deadline. Same for the budgets. The House of Representatives have certain day to pass a budget, or the government shutdown (unlikely in P&W or real life). The president has certain days to sign a bill before it automatically becomes a law. The government is based on deadline, yet it is still a form of democracy, because they are elected and the citizens have a say in the political process, and appointed people are part of the decision making. So I do not see how having a "strict deadline" is a terrible idea, ELPINCHAZO. Yes it does force something to happen, and it is likely to solves problems than cause problems. Whereas, if no deadlines is enforced, ministers and council will sit around all day and do nothing. One of the fears that people get for which they do not want democracy is that government will not function, because they will wait all day before decisions are made. I can tell you right now it is based on how you craft your constitution. Will the alliance leader need approval before declaring alliance wide war or await approval? Can the alliance leader vetoes be override or is his/her decision final? Even if his or her decisions are final, there is still democracy. In a democracy, you can make it clear that government will stay function, while awaiting decisions. To make sure you get those decisions made, you rely on the deadline as I said. Government will function until a decision is made and see how to incorporate the decisions. Example, ministers will continue to work while a new election is in place. Once the election is over, they are replaced. Same with the council. And this wouldn't be a problem, because if you set the deadline to vote (despite how many people vote), you will have your result and get your government going. Another example, the Finance Minister could hand out massive grants and loans, until at a certain point that the council brings up a bill to limit how much is given. The minister will continue to give out massive grants and loans; should the new bill become a law, the minister can now see how to incorporate it. Likewise, the Internal Affairs Minister can recruit as many people. He/she will continue to recruit as many until a bill becomes a law that limits how many people can be recruited. How all those play out will depend on your constitution and the leader. If you leader vetoes it, can it be overridden? If the leader likes it, he can sign it. If he/she feels like it, at a certain point, he/she can call for a new law or ask the current ones be revised. Most alliances are perfect without democracy, I for one am just asking a question and trying to provide answers. This shouldn't be taken as asking alliances to start replacing their government with democracy (not that I can do that anyway). I should say that although a alliance is healthy, without council or some sort of say in the decision making, or members being able to move up the ranks and play as decision makers, we will continue to have new alliances emerging, only because those who created it want to exercise power. If not create an alliance of their own, they will likely go to an alliance where there is a chance to be part of the process.

I was in EoS! I miss those days! And haha, I just "sold my oil" that's funny.

Can it? Or is it a trouble for disaster?

Note: Not criticizing any alliance. Offering opinion. There’s much debate to be had about this question, but I thought I ask it and try to provide answers, though not comprehensively. I know this post will meet scrutiny and criticism, but those are two things I do not run away from. I cherished them; they allow for meaningful discussions. Firmly, democracy can work, if we make it work. During beta days, I was in an alliance where I was a minister. I was elected to the position, not appointed. I served my position to the best of my capacity and I enjoyed it very much. Being a minister made me felt like I had a voice, although the position didn’t come easily. I did my part as a member before reaching the point where I could join the ranks of decision makers. Joining an alliance, prospering from its programs, and reaching to the point where I was on the ballot and elected to a ministerial position made it worth my being there. This, I feel is what most alliances members wish for – a chance to play a role as a decision maker, instead of “another member.†No question about it, today, there are 119 alliances. Why? Power. Each person who creates an alliance wants power and influence and a say on membership, resources, alliance programs, wars, and more. Whereas, as a member, they’ll have no say. Perhaps, those may be the reason one leaves an alliance and joins one where opportunities awaits him or creates one of his own. How to make democracy work: Make ministerial positions elected positions, instead of appointed – set number of positions, needed score to be considered, required applicants (ex:2 for each ministerial position) for elections to be held, and serving time. Those who will be on the ballot will be based on first come first serve, by having each send an “intentions letter†to the leader of the alliance or election director. Intentions letter should be specific. If one person wants a certain position and others do not want it, he/she automatically gets it. The three who want the same position will be on ballot. By making ministerial positions elected positions, those who can’t run will stay have a say. Have a council (set it up like the ministerial positions) but require someone among them to be the leader who will forward communications to the alliance leader so as to avoid duplicate communications. The council leader will also moderate the council to keep it going. Have an Election Center in the alliance forum - ministerial and council elections happen there, separately. Either the leader handles it, or appoint someone to handle it. Set elections rules and deadline (ex: 24 hr. to vote). After ministerial and council serving term, have a new election, separately. Set strict deadline for action, applying it to the council and ministers (so as not to impede progress) Make it clear that government will stay function, while awaiting decisions. - Editor-in-Chief

My bad. My boredom took me away.

Zambia Vietnam Venezuela Vanuatu Uzbekistan Uruguay United Arab Emirates Ukraine Uganda Tuvalu Turkmenistan Turkey Tunisia Trinidad and Tobago Tonga Togo Thailand Tanzania Tajikistan Syria Switzerland Sweden Swaziland Suriname Sri Lanka South Sudan Somalia Solomon Islands Slovenia Slovakia Sierra Leone Seychelles Serbia Senegal Saudi Arabia Sao Tome and Principe San Marino Samoa Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Lucia Rwanda Romania Qatar Portugal Poland Philippines Peru Paraguay Papua New Guinea Panama

Kenya Sudan Liberia Libya Egypt Zimbabwe Afghanistan India Iraq

The United Nations is the only trusted source. Other sources are in the 200+, while country like US has interest and doesn't even recognizes Taiwan. To avoid dispute, UN is the best source.

Norway Brazil

Germany Greece