|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:12:00 GMT -6
Incorrect! The Organic Law is making it a right for a woman to decide what is right for her body. It is not YOUR right to tell her she does not have the right and it is not YOUR right to shame her.
Trying to amend the Organic Law to give a clear preference to once religious icon, who may or may not exist and then to equate that with a personal inherent right to dictate what will happen to their own body is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:13:28 GMT -6
You might be right that they're two different things, but that doesn't make the Organic "right" to abortion reproductive rights any less unpalatable. I fixed it for you.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 10:26:38 GMT -6
Incorrect! The Organic Law is making it a right for a woman to decide what is right for her body. It is not YOUR right to tell her she does not have the right and it is not YOUR right to shame her. Incorrect! The Organic Law is making it a right for a woman to decide that her living child has no right to life and that she has a right to extinguish that life and the rest of us citizens have to be okay with that. As Owen pointed out, this is like saying that "White Sox fans have no right to life, so feel free to kill them; it's your right and we all agree that it is." No, it's not. Both are controversial subjects that many people disagree with, and that is exactly how they equate. Hool
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 18, 2012 10:26:50 GMT -6
The king didn't equate them on that level. He said they are both extremely controversial cultural topics, and for that reason, should not be in the Organic Law. In your reasoning some people may consider the fact that someone holds sovereignty that could be passed on to his heirs to be a controversial cultural topic that shouldn't be in the Organic Law because it makes the country unpalatable to some one. But they still live with it.[/quote] We're talking apples, oranges, and bananas now. The fact that the nation is a monarchy is a definition of its system of government and something that defines the nation itself. The fact that the Organic Law says we all have to say "it's your right to kill your fetus" is something that exists on a different plane, the plane of human rights. The CeR's "Jewish Carpenter" bill (doomed to fail, and we all smile, so it's not biggie and we're talking a lot for nothing) wouldn't take away or abridge the freedom of worship that is in the OrgLaw. Again, this is (to a great many people) like being in a nation that says "you have the right to kill your fellow citizens". Sure, I might not ever do that myself, but I really don't like the fact that other people can get away with it freely. Sure, everything is different from everything else (hence my apples, oranges, bananas) comments. But the point is that in one very important way, they're NOT different. They're both things that many people would NOT want to sign on to. And thus they should both NOT be in the Organic Law of our great nation. Hool
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 10:30:05 GMT -6
The value-neutral phrase, to me, is abortion (with "infanticide" and "reproductive rights" being value-laden in my British context); as for the nature of abortion, the point is that we plainly disagree at a very basic level about what is going on when a termination occurs. Unless we were agreed on what status the foetus has, there would be no point in us discussing the rights and wrongs issue, especially on an Internet forum. The point being made by His Majesty was that his conscience (and mine and Manus' and many others') is pricked because the Organic Law already enshrines as a right what - to us - could at best, very occasionally, be a tragic medical necessity leading to the end of a life. I think he was suggesting a bit of common understanding, not a misguided debate about social policy.
EDIT: Common understanding being that, when controversial subjects make their way into the OrgLaw and adjudicate on that subject in one side's favour, some people are put out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:30:31 GMT -6
Incorrect! The Organic Law is making it a right for a woman to decide what is right for her body. It is not YOUR right to tell her she does not have the right and it is not YOUR right to shame her. Incorrect! The Organic Law is making it a right for a woman to decide that her living child has no right to life and that she has a right to extinguish that life and the rest of us citizens have to be okay with that. As Owen pointed out, this is like saying that "White Sox fans have no right to life, so feel free to kill them; it's your right and we all agree that it is." Incorrect! The reproductive rights of a women are basic human rights. And spare me your doublespeak, it is not a living child. And if I suddenly had an issue with freedom of speech, we should throw that out of the organic law? This argument is tired and simply doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:33:57 GMT -6
And I want to applaud King John for taking a topic that wasn't even in the radar of our political discourse and making it the hot button issue for today.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Jul 18, 2012 10:36:45 GMT -6
My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter? Really?
I'd like to thank all the sane politicians from the great province of Fiôvâ for voting contra on this miéidâ.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 10:37:22 GMT -6
[quote author=mha board=general thread=7076 post=Incorrect! The reproductive rights of a women are basic human rights. And spare me your doublespeak, it is not a living child. Choose to disagree with me if you wish, but you will neither convince me nor anyone on this side of the subject. Abortion stops a beating heart. A fetus left unmolested becomes a living breathing fellow citizen of the world (there is absolutely no double-speak there). And that young human life being extinguished may be the one destined to cure cancer. You won't convince me that there is any moral justification for abortion. To me a fertilized egg is just as much a chicken as one that is clucking. (In your photo, the top left photo, though, is not a chicken. Not anymore. It was either a female chicken's egg, unfertilized, or, if fertilized, it was a chicken. But then the egg was cracked, and the chicken, which was working hard on growing, died.) Hool
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:37:37 GMT -6
EDIT: Common understanding being that, when controversial subjects make their way into the OrgLaw and adjudicate on that subject in one side's favour, some people are put out. Owen, the *only* controversial subject that is trying to make its way into the Organic Law is having the State of Talossa recognize a religious figure. Let's not get this twisted. The discussion on reproductive rights needn't be brought up. But it was and here we are.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:39:53 GMT -6
You won't convince me either. Simply because, it is but a fetus. Having a moral objection to it doesn't mean you should take away the rights of another human being. Just as I do not have the right to take away freedom of speech because I may morally object to it. Moreover, nobody is trampling on your religious rights. If you wish not to engage in that particular method of birth control, don't engage in it.
You have the right to worship whatever god you want; You have the right to take exception to whatever law you want on moral grounds; You do not have the right to deny defined human rights from another person because of your religious beliefs; You do not have the right to codify your religion into the Organic Law.
V
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 10:44:34 GMT -6
EDIT: Common understanding being that, when controversial subjects make their way into the OrgLaw and adjudicate on that subject in one side's favour, some people are put out. Owen, the *only* controversial subject that is trying to make its way into the Organic Law is having the State of Talossa recognize a religious figure. Let's not get this twisted. The discussion on reproductive rights needn't be brought up. But it was and here we are. My point is that I understood the King to be saying - to those who are angry about a tongue-in-cheek Amendment named by an atheist who was in on it - that reacting in such a way might understand why some of us feel uncomfortable about the right to abortion enshrined in the Organic Law. He didn't actually suggest altering the status of that right to abortion.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 10:47:02 GMT -6
Simply because you have moral objection to it doesn't mean you should take away the rights of another human being. Ah, but there's the entire point. To me and a great many others, that fetus is as much a human being as you or I. To me, allowing someone to kill that human being is the worst deprival of rights -- the right to live -- of all. "Taking away" a woman's "right" to kill her child does not make sense to me, because no one should have the "right" to kill anyone. Hool
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 10:54:32 GMT -6
Simply because you have moral objection to it doesn't mean you should take away the rights of another human being. Ah, but there's the entire point. To me and a great many others, that fetus is as much a human being as you or I. To me, allowing someone to kill that human being is the worst deprival of rights -- the right to live -- of all. "Taking away" a woman's "right" to kill her child does not make sense to me, because no one should have the "right" to kill anyone. Hool Yeah Hool, it's not murder as it's not a person. You do not have right to tell someone what they can and cannot do their body. And frankly, shaming someone who has had to make this very difficult decision by calling it killing and referring to them as murderers doesn't really sit well with me.
|
|
Sir Tamorán dal Navâ
Shackamaxon man/Can you tell me where you stand?
Posts: 772
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
Motto: Cedo nulli.
|
Post by Sir Tamorán dal Navâ on Jul 18, 2012 10:54:57 GMT -6
Yeah, this little experiment is teetering. Maybe I should start packing now.
|
|