MMO Champion! Do you lean left or right?

[Machismo]

an echo chamber is any place overwhelmed with a singular ideology

immigration halt, segregation for mutual benefit

You just implied they shared your ideology.

So, forced racial discrimination. That's late 1940's Nazi Germany right there. What if they resist?

Yep, no wonder you guys share the same ideology.

[Lenonis]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/faq.php...orbiddentopics

Silly. Clearly he was banned because he was conservative. Not because he's flagrantly breaking the rules.

[Endus]

Pretending we are not denying the basic right of an unborn child to be born here. It might not be covered within the human rights, an oversight of young humanitarianism perhaps, but it is considered a basic right in almost every single religion and various other ideologies.

There is not one other instance where Human Being A's right to life is deemed to overrule Human Being B's right to bodily autonomy. We don't harvest organs or tissue from those who don't volunteer, for instance. We don't even do that if Human Being B has died, not without permission from a loved one.

Even if we grant that a fetus at that level of development qualifies as a human being at all (this is by no means an easy argument to make, and inherently involves pseudo-religious arguments if not straight-up religious ones; there is no scientific or rational basis for this conclusion), it still cannot possibly justify a pro-life stance, not unless you consider a woman's right to control the use of her own body to not be a right that she holds.

Which is misogynistic subjugation of women.

Hence the point.

Pro-life is inherently misogynistic, and there is no way to get around that.

The concept that suffering is sometimes necessary to keep the world just is hardly new or unusual.

Not often that people admit that cruelty is the point of a policy. But there you go.

PS: I'm not against abortion, but it's a bit wrong to try and portray this as some sort of obvious good vs evil choice. The subject is a lot more complex than that, and most people aren't pro-abortion because they want to defend women's rights or see no harm in killing fetuses, but because abortion might be a necessary evil to limit further unnecessary suffering.

Nobody is "pro-abortion". They're pro-choice. As in; a woman and her doctor should be the only ones deciding what medical procedures are relevant to her situation.

It is not a "necessary evil", because it's not "evil" in the first place.

Nor did I bring up "good" or "evil". I simply pointed out that pro-life stances are inherently, irrevocably rooted in denying women basic human rights and equality. Which they are. In every single instance. Does that make them "evil"? Probably, but that's a moral judgement. That the position is misogynistic and discriminatory and subjugatory is not a moral judgement; it's simple observational fact.

[downnola]

PS: I'm not against abortion, but it's a bit wrong to try and portray this as some sort of obvious good vs evil choice. The subject is a lot more complex than that, and most people aren't pro-abortion because they want to defend women's rights or see no harm in killing fetuses, but because abortion might be a necessary evil to limit further unnecessary suffering.

Ending abortions isn't really the goal of pro-lifer. If it was they would promote alternatives like contraception, the morning after pill, and so on. Abortions will still happen even if it's banned, it just makes it less safe for women to have them. Just like prohibition of alcohol forced people to go underground with their alcohol consumption, banning abortions will just force women to use coat hangers or underground procedures.

This fact seems to evade every pro-lifers that goes on about the morality of an abortion but ignore the consequences of what would happen otherwise. It doesn't help their case that many of them oppose the alternatives as well, which is why it's not difficult to call out their misogyny. They just view women as baby factories, not an individual worthy of choices, good health, and self-determination.

[Mihalik]

Pretending we are not denying the basic right of an unborn child to be born here.

The rights of unborn children are protected by the law.

Until a fetus is viable outside the womb it's not a child.

The rights of a non viable collection of self replicating cells do not and should never trump the rights of an actual existing person to their health, well-being, life, bodily autonomy and personal independence.

For clarity sake.

The Bible has (or the Torah) has absolutely no prohibition against abortion. The singular time abortion is mentioned in the entire text...it actually endorses abortions describing how the husband should force his wife to have one if he suspects she's bearing another man's child.

It's exhausting to have to constantly tell religious loons to read their own books.

[uuuhname]

The rights of unborn children are protected by the law.

Until a fetus is viable outside the womb it's not a child.

The rights of a non viable collection of self replicating cells do not and should never trump the rights of an actual existing person to their health, well-being, life, bodily autonomy and personal independence.

For clarity sake.

The Bible has (or the Torah) has absolutely no prohibition against abortion. The singular time abortion is mentioned in the entire text...it actually endorses abortions describing how the husband should force his wife to have one if he suspects she's bearing another man's child.

It's exhausting to have to constantly tell religious loons to read their own books.

I don't think Rochana is religious, they just hate women having bodily autonomy. that's what it always boils down to with those people.

[Machismo]

The discussion is always about when a fetus could be considered a child or not. That isn't something that science can determine and claim the sole authority over. Science is only one opinion, philosophy has many more which are just as valid.


There are many different interpretations. It is not because you found a singular paragraph somewhere in their religious texts that this suddenly becomes the ultimate truth of their religion. There are as always many other paragraphs and texts that might contradict those statements, it is thus all up for interpretation and currently it seems the most popular interpretations are that abortion is not that liked.

Your religion doesn't belong in my government.

This is a common tactic of Trumpsters, trying to use religion as a shield to justify their bigotry and oppression.

[Machismo]

I'm not very religious. I just understand their point of view. Understanding and dialogue are neither a sin nor something evil.

Luckily, Florida is a secular state, so religion doesn't belong in government.

[Endus]

The discussion is always about when a fetus could be considered a child or not. That isn't something that science can determine and claim the sole authority over. Science is only one opinion, philosophy has many more which are just as valid.

No. It is not. Abortion rights have nothing to do with whether the fetus is a human being or not. Literally nothing. As I said earlier, even if we allow for that hypothetical, it becomes a case of "do we infringe upon Person A's bodily autonomy to protect Person B's right to life"?

And there's an obvious, universal answer to that question. "Fuck no." If that question were answered with a "yes", then you'd be supporting forced harvesting of blood and organs and other tissues from unwilling people, by the government, on the basis that "these will save someone's life".

The simple truth is that bodily autonomy trumps right-to-life in every case. Even if the person whose bodily rights are in question is deceased. Pro-life positions seek to give women less recognition as human beings than we grant to dead bodies, let alone living human beings.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is considered a human being. If it is, the only option not based solely on misogyny is still full support for abortion rights. That it's even a question whether the fetus can be considered a human being just makes pro-life positions that much more abusive.

No one is pro-life and also respectful of women as the equals of men. Just like nobody can think black people are the social and legal equals of white people, and support chattel slavery of blacks. It's that level of direct contradiction.

There are many different interpretations. It is not because you found a singular paragraph somewhere in their religious texts that this suddenly becomes the ultimate truth of their religion. There are as always many other paragraphs and texts that might contradict those statements, it is thus all up for interpretation and currently it seems the most popular interpretations are that abortion is not that liked.

Fuck the "intepretations". Religion is something personal. Statements that "I can't do that because of my religion" are fine. Statements that "You can't do that because of my religion" are tyranny and religious oppression. If your religion says abortion is bad, you're free to not choose to have an abortion. You are not free to try and deny that right to others, not unless you want to rightly be called out as a religious fascist who's attacking people's basic human rights. Including their freedom of religion, in this case. Denying people their rights because of your religion is just you explaining that you're a bigot and your interpretation of your religion is bigoted and abusive. It isn't a defense.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not very religious. I just understand their point of view. Understanding and dialogue are neither a sin nor something evil.

Religion isn't a defense. It doesn't make them "not bigots". It just explains how they defend their bigotries to themselves and their fellows.

[Bodakane]

You think?

Is the Democratic Party in the USA left or right?

Its specific to the country, but its not nebulous.

[Orby]

I don't lean, I have excellent posture

[Lenonis]

The discussion is always about when a fetus could be considered a child or not. That isn't something that science can determine and claim the sole authority over. Science is only one opinion, philosophy has many more which are just as valid.

When it comes to the law this statement is entirely incorrect. You can have all the philosophical debates about when life starts as you want but when it comes to making law it's up to science, otherwise it's a blatant violation of church and state.

- - - Updated - - -

They caused the situation themselves.

Your misogyny is showing.

[draugril]

I'm an issues guy, too. I tend to straddle the middle, but I suppose I skew left given how extreme the right wing has been skewed by Trump and those who would emulate him. A couple decades ago, I would have skewed right.

[Machismo]

Religion is actually most often something communal. The religions that manage to survive the centuries at least tend to be communal in nature. In contrast with how atomized and lonely society is becoming, as it claims that everything is just a personal choice or experience. Humans are social creatures, they might have a need for communal religions and certain decisions being made by their community instead of being left free. Being 'set free' used to be a punishment.

Your religion is not welcome in the government in the state of Florida.

Religion is about power, money, and control.

[draugril]

The Bible has (or the Torah) has absolutely no prohibition against abortion. The singular time abortion is mentioned in the entire text...it actually endorses abortions describing how the husband should force his wife to have one if he suspects she's bearing another man's child.

Out of interest, which passage?

[JohnBrown1917]

Religion is actually most often something communal. The religions that manage to survive the centuries at least tend to be communal in nature. In contrast with how atomized and lonely society is becoming, as it claims that everything is just a personal choice or experience. Humans are social creatures, they might have a need for communal religions and certain decisions being made by their community instead of being left free. Being 'set free' used to be a punishment.

Good for you folk, not all of us want to deal with your religious bullshit. Be they Buddhist, islamic, hindu, christian or whatever the fuck.

- - - Updated - - -

Surely you wouldn't be in favor for women who would just get pregnant every few months and then just casually go have an abortion every time it suits them? That seems reckless and irresponsible to me, but that is the equivalence you are drawing. I've understood that in some US states you can even abort while the kid has already been 8-9 months in your belly with no questions asked. That isn't about giving women equality or choice anymore, that is trying to absolve women from any form of responsibility over their own choices.

Just casually repeating what you recently heard on some far right nutjob's show, never change.

[Endus]

That is a false comparison.

Namely in many cases the women hold a certain amount of responsibility for someone's life being in danger in this situation.

False. What you're expressing is just straight misogyny. Even if they did share a certain amount of responsibility, it would not abrogate their bodily autonomy in any other instance, and there's no damned reason to think it should here.

If a parent carries a gene that gives a child a congenital defect that means the child needs a kidney transplant, the parent cannot be obligated to give up that kidney. There's as much "responsibility" there as in your example, but we still won't arrest and forcibly extract that kidney against the parent's will.

Because that's an egregious abuse of human rights.

Obviously.

The only difference here is that some people have convinced themselves that women aren't really people, and should be brood mares that serve at the whim of society, and their choices thus don't matter. That's the pro-life movement. That's the whole thing. Every other argument they produce is to conceal that central motive.

They caused the situation themselves (in certain situations, not all of them obviously). So the more appropriate question might be: "Does someone hold responsibility to donate non-lethal parts of their organs to safe someone whose life they put into danger?"

Again, the answer to that is "unequivocally no" in literally every other example. Even ignoring that the "responsibility" shit is garbage.

Having sex is not consent to impregnation and carrying to term. That's a misogynistic load of crap and you really should stop repeating that Gileadean bullshit.

Surely you wouldn't be in favor for women who would just get pregnant every few months and then just casually go have an abortion every time it suits them? That seems reckless and irresponsible to me, but that is the equivalence you are drawing.

Why wouldn't I be? That's how the law works here in Canada. We literally have no special laws for abortion; it's a medical procedure and whether you get an abortion or not is entirely between the woman and her doctor.

It isn't "reckless and irresponsible". In fact, having that abortion is what's "responsible", in the majority of those cases. Unplanned pregnancies when there is no stable home for raising a child is not a responsible situation to force a child into. Let alone cases of birth defects, abuse, or the like.

I couldn't give less of a shit what your moral feelings are on the subject. I don't see why you should get any say in anyone else's medical treatment. The same reason I don't think a Jehovah's Witness should be able to deny anyone else access to blood transfusions, for their personal beliefs. Your opinion is not relevant. You're entitled to it, but it only applies to what choices you choose to make, for yourself.

I've understood that in some US states you can even abort while the kid has already been 8-9 months in your belly with no questions asked. That isn't about giving women equality or choice anymore, that is trying to absolve women from any form of responsibility over their own choices.

There is no "responsibility". Again, that's an imagined argument that has no basis in any legal circumstance whatsoever. You're making that shit up, as grounds for attacking women's basic human rights.

Religion is actually most often something communal. The religions that manage to survive the centuries at least tend to be communal in nature. In contrast with how atomized and lonely society is becoming, as it claims that everything is just a personal choice or experience. Humans are social creatures, they might have a need for communal religions and certain decisions being made by their community instead of being left free. Being 'set free' used to be a punishment.

And if you want to make the "communal" argument, then religious views only apply within that religious community, and if anyone chooses to leave that community because they reject one or more of those views, then those views stop applying to them.

Those communities only exist by independent personal consent to those strictures. The moment an individual says "you know what? Fuck it, I'm out", those strictures no longer have any bearing over them, because they withdrew that consent.

Also, kudos on trying to use shunning and other forms of emotional abuse/control as if they're somehow positives.

[JohnBrown1917]

Aren't you an anarcho-communist? You might want to look into what the communal part there actually means. If you think it means just doing whatever the fuck you want, you might be sorely mistaken.

That you fail to understand how rights work under communism is not really my problem. Communism is also no excuse to worse whatever shitty religion you support on everybody.

[uuuhname]

Your misogyny is showing.

right on cue as well...

[CancerCulture]

The Political Leanings of this forum are skewed heavily Left because Forum guidelines are administered in a biased fashion.

Normal forums involve minimal moderator intervention. On this one however, if anyone articulates counterpoints to Leftist sentiment, they are classified as a troll, a seagull, a sea lion, a racist, a bigot or the many other terms utilized to paint a poster as a detriment to the forum, further preserving the true echo chamber.

This is why it's repeatedly been an issue for years on here. Do the moderators care? No, fostering group think allows them to feel some sense of validation for their beliefs, even if normal Americans believe (rightfully so) that they are socially marginalized fringe radicals.