Edward
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Edward
-
-
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.
-
Nobody ever said humans should kill themselves off to solve overpopulation. The ideal solution to overpopulation would be reducing the growth rate to 0, meaning that only enough children are born to replace the people that die. That doesn't mean humans will die off, that means the population will simply stay the same size.
Also, in case you weren't aware, the human population is quickly approaching the Earth's carrying capacity. And unlike our friend Luxa von Bismarck claims, reaching carrying capacity would mean that there are too few resources to feed and care for the human population, and as a result, growth would halt and subsequently large numbers of people would begin to die. That process would persist until the population was again low enough to provide for itself. That's elementary ecology.
The point is, by encouraging people to keep having more and more children, and by defending every single fetus as having the same legal status as a citizen, you are more than likely condemning the future population to more and more suffering, because the more people there are, the faster we will reach carrying capacity and the more severe shortages will be. It obviously seems unnatural to oppose population growth - because it is, since we are driven to reproduce - but you can imagine that a world at carrying capacity would be utterly disastrous to society.
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.
-
It's not very logical to compare things like vaccinations, drugs and alcohol to abortion. There is a very firm reason why the government takes those things seriously: because people who refuse vaccinations can spread otherwise-controllable diseases to other people, which can often produce serious problems, and because people who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol can - and frequently do - bring harm to others, whether through violence or lack of control (for example, DUI accidents). It is the responsibility of the government to ensure its citizens are as safe as possible within reason, and to do that there are laws that control vaccinations, drugs, alcohol, et cetera.
Oh, but aborting doesn't bring harm to a baby? So because a baby hasn't been born yet, it is consider a citizens, until it is born? Pretty much what you're saying is that because you aren't born yet, you don't matter. Am I getting this right?
Simply because the government exercises some control over people's bodies does not justify extra control over women. They must follow the same drugs and alcohol laws as men and children, and receive vaccinations in the same manner. You are absolutely correct in the statement that, under the law, a women's body should be treated no differently than a man's - and therefore, since men aren't lawfully forced to give birth, neither should women.
It doesn't fix the problem to just say that if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't engage in intercourse - chiefly because rape is frighteningly common for women. In any case, the dilemma is that if you defend the rights of a fetus, you are overriding the rights of a woman; conversely, if you advocate for women's rights, you are overriding the rights allowed to the fetus. To me, it makes much more sense to respect the life of a grown, developed human who can fully think and feel, rather than a fetus that is not even self-aware.
I'm defending the "fetus" because it doesn't have a voice, and abortion is trying to silent the "fetus" voice. Now you said that, "to me, it makes much more sense to respect the life of a grown, developed human who can fully think and feel, rather than a fetus that is not even self-aware," okay, but this full grown human was once a "fetus." All of a sudden because the human is living, those after him/her shouldn't? Are they less important than him/her?
Put yourself in the situation of a female rape victim: you have recently been brutalized and sexually violated by a strange, disgusting person, and you've been mentally traumatized by the incident. You will probably not regain your former sense of security for years and years, and you will remember this awful event for the rest of your life, and very possibly have constant nightmares about it. Then you find out that you're pregnant - and instead of allowing you to get rid of the tiny fetus, the law instead is forcing you to carry out the pregnancy in full, and give life to the result of the traumatic incident. That is a very sickening, twisted view of justice.
It is important to realize that abortion don't just take fully-developed babies almost ready for birth and bash them or stab them or rip them apart. Abortion almost exclusively eliminates feti that are small and still in fundamental development - often before they even have anything you could call a brain anyway. That is the chief reason why you cannot point at pro-choice people and ask them if they'd be okay with killing a newborn infant, or an infant soon before birth. Babies do not develop a huge portion of neural connections until reasonably late in pregnancy, and until that bloom of neural activity, a fetus is not much more than a cluster of organs.
You also have to realize that pro-choice people don't like abortion. I think it is sad when a woman makes that decision. But that doesn't mean women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy involving a lot of pain and stress, not to mention years and years of commitment if adoption is not involved. It is not very logical to treat a developing fetus in the same regard as a walking, thinking, breathing human - we kill deer, cows, pigs, rats, mice, etc. on a daily basis, and all of those creatures are more developed and neurologically capable than a fetus. We don't find much of a problem with killing those creatures because we don't consider them self-aware and intelligent enough to suffer much; and if you are fine with those animals being killed, then it doesn't make much sense to fiercely defend a human fetus that isn't even developed enough to feel pain.
I don't know why you would compare an animal to a human, though. Animals are meant for eating, though some people choose not to eat them. Because an animal and a human fetus are not the same, I could defend the human fetus and not the animal, because it is a human! A person who is not different from me!! Also, simply because the human fetus is walking, thinking, or breathing yet, doesn't mean I can't defend it. Perhaps, if you and abortion advocate allowed it to live, it would be able to walk, think, and breath. But just because it isn't doing those yet doesn't mean it life doesn't matter.
In short, if you oppose abortion in favor of the rights of a developing fetus, then you are effectively putting the rights of a cluster of organs without pain, thought or awareness in higher regard than the rights of a conscious, active adult human being. Abortion does indeed end the life of what would become a human being, but we end the lives of countless animals that actively suffer through their deaths, while a fetus cannot feel or perceive anything. Unless you are in active opposition to killing any animal, then it doesn't make very much sense to place a fetus in the same legal status as an adult human. And for that reason, I support the rights of adult women to maintain their way of life in the event of an undesired pregnancy.
Again, you cannot compare a human being life to an animal live. They are not the same!
-
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.
-
2
-
-
You have to be more specific. Democracy as in who's the head of the alliance? Democracy for who's the heir or the officers? Democracy for what decisions the alliance should make?
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).
-
Personal attacks. Very mature.
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.
-
3
-
-
It's really simple. Don't poke the bear(or dog, in this case) if you don't want any trouble.
Or you could just not post if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. If all you're going to do is try to get a reaction out of people then that is a form of trolling and ought to be moderated. Is this a confession?
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.
-
3
-
-
atheism has infected politics and stopped people voting. making atheism illegal would help stop the fall of democracy as atheist want what it is in communist russia.
I'm not getting your logical? How exactly has atheism infected politics and stopped people from voting?
-
I don't think mandatory voting is going to solve anything. Generally, those that are educated and follow politics go out and vote. I don't want the guy who doesn't know the first thing about politics or government being forced to go to the polls and just pick "Clinton" or "Bush" because he's seen that name before. I want people who watch the news, watch the political debates, etc. voting (whether they vote the same way as I do or not).
Election Day as a holiday is a good idea, I think. Also, why make it just one day? Make it a weekend, and that might give people more opportunities to vote. Most (if not all) states do have absentee voting, where you just mail in your ballot, and I believe Oregon (might be a different state) has 100% mail-in voting (no going to the polls).
As for having more than two parties, I think that actually leads to a more unstable government. You see in European countries with multi-party systems loose coalitions. At the end of the day, government is going to break down to 2 sides, whether you have 2 parties or 10 parties. All that happens in the multi party system is that you have strange compromises (the party for protecting the environment coalesces with the party for hardcore theists, perhaps, so that they can each better push their respective agendas) with no real solid foundation. When it becomes more beneficial for a certain party to completely flip coalitions, they will, which like I said can lead to some fast-changing radical shifts in government.
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.
-
I don't need an introduction to the internet, thank you very much. And it doesn't make a difference. That's not what this board is for, and I'm not going to take !@#$ from you for pointing it out.
Now piss off.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
It worked for officers in original EoS. In another game, it did not work at all. Every month, I waited for a new alliance to be created by the loser.
Then they went to war.
And I sold my oil.
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?
-
Saudi Arabia and Slovenia were already said.
Republic of Korea(South Korea)
And it's probably better if you only say 1 country per post or this game is going to end very quickly...
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
-
That is kinda racist.
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.
-
1
-
-
Norway
Brazil
-
Germany
Greece
-
Japan
China
Russia
-
Abortion ought to be abolished, permanently!
in General Debate
Posted
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?