By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart said:

JWeinCom said:

Actually, going to end it here for now, cause I have studying to do. May repost later.

I did catch the lenghty message you deleted. Just in case you decide to repost, my example of dna-sample to determine fatherhood is how it works in my country. It wasn't a wacky analogy but an example of a situation where to rights overlap and lawmakers can decide to limit another right in a specific situation. There are other examples as well.

My intention also wasn't to cherry pick some of your points. Questions like what about rape victims etc. are of course valid, it's just that we've had these discussions in my country and we've had a well-functioning law and system about it for decades. So I thought I won't bother with those as my point was from the begin with that your analogies were deeply flawed. 

Whether the fetus has a reasonable chance of life is not a legal distinction. It is a factual distinction, but why does that change the legal analysis? What is the underlying principle? When we have to use our body to preserve another viable life we must? I am undoubtedly a viable human life, but neither of my parents have to use their bodies to keep me alive against my consent. Could we force them to give a blood transfusion? Could we have forced my mother to give me a blood transfusion when I was a minute old?

This is where I get confused. Legal distinction here is a 24-week old fetus, and it's partly based on factual distinction. Rest of your questions are again suggesting that there can't be a legal difference between a fetus and a born human, even though this is the case in many countries. Maybe in US it isn't possible to make a legal distinction then, I don't know but I find it odd.

Is this really an ongoing debate in US? That if you don't have to donate an organ to somebody, then a mother doesn't have to use her body to grow a baby? To me that's going into extremes, but teh freedom and bodily autonomy, right?

Regardless of how DNA tests actually work, if somebody in Sweeden genuinely had a reasonable objection to having their blood tested, do you think they would not find another way to do it that would work without the part they disapprove of? For instance, if in the US we did blood tests for DNA and a Jehovah's witness (they are against blood transfusions and such) legitimately objected, we'd find another way to do it. If on the other hand, they just don't want to be found to be the father, that is not about bodily autonomy. 

There is to my knowledge no serious discussion about forcing parents to give organs, or harvest dead organs. Although, there actually have been cases I believe of keeping a brain dead mother alive for the sake of a fetus, so I don't think it's ridiculously far fetched, even if it is unlikely. At any rate, that's not my point. My point is why we find generally find those cases so obvious even if the imposition is incredibly minor, even if it will preserve life, even if there is no legitimate reason not to undergo a procedure etc., and how the case of the pregnant woman is different. The examples were not designed to be realistic, but specifically to isolate the particular reasons one might give that a woman has to carry a fetus to term in any event. But if we want to talk about actual realistic consequences of the law, then there are plenty of those, which is why I shifted.

This ties into factual vs legal distinction. In a court in the US, there are two functions, stating what the law is, and finding facts. Typically a judge does the first, and a jury the second. Generally speaking, the law should, and pretty much must, be consistent on the law itself. To again be overly broad, laws are either based on rights we have, obligations we have, or restrictions on the government. Those rights, are the same, regardless of circumstance. 

To use a clearer example, lets go with birth defect. In the situation of a healthy fetus vs one with a birth defect that will likely not result in stillbirth, then the factual distinction is obvious. The legal distinction is incredibly unclear. Why in that situation does the defective fetus not have a right to life? I can't think of a good answer to that, so I don't see how we can justify a 24 week abortion ban with such an exception without it being arbitrary, which I believe it is. A 15 week old vs 24 week old, you can say viability is the legal distinction, that rights kick in at a certain age, but I don't see why that should be the case. And maybe in other countries it ultimately doesn't matter in a practical sense because they're not going to try to restrict abortions at 15 weeks or earlier, but here they absolutely would, so the underlying rationale is incredibly important.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 11 May 2022

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
SegaHeart said:

What's the restrictions between the 2?

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 

Ok thank you. Will give you a like. I have a feeling you're very into politics in America, I guess I can expect getting coached differences and such? I'm a Noobie at politics but you seem nice and won't put those that are transitioning or new to politics down. Though If I make a mistake in any of the prefered party you're at I feel you won't throw me but instead correct me and lead me and educate me making me feel more welcome to you're party?

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 11 May 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Runa216 said:
SegaHeart said:

What's the restrictions between the 2?

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.



Machiavellian said:
Runa216 said:

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.

Cool, now we are getting robbery/rape advice on VGC.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:
Machiavellian said:

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.

Cool, now we are getting robbery/rape advice on VGC.

Not sure if that could be defined as robbery or rape, as easy prey can be a very broad title.  For all you know, they would shoot you just for stepping on their nice shoes or bumping into them or giving them direct eye contact.  You only assume its limited to just those 2 specific cases. As far as the advice, it means never underestimate or assume anything else you be six feet under asking GOD how you got here.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
Runa216 said:

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.

Bolded I'm not educated in this but are these strong woman from any specific state I do like the idea of a woman defending herself from a rapist from a bypassing truck trying to kidnap but instead gets lead. I hate kidnappers thinking certain woman are easy to deal with. I haven't thought about woman using a gun for self defence until now I mostly think about clubs I go to (Rarely) and thinking if I dance with a random girl the boyfriend will shoot me. happens alot in California so many clubs and Cantina's shut down because of jealous boyfriends killing another man? I think woman should be more allowed on guns than a man? I might change the Idea of not wanting guns? I remember a crazy racist punching my mom because she looked mexican it was the sun that made her brown, though the sun can't make me brown because my skin pigmentation is barely affected by sun so I always look Light skinned and welcomed by all races mostly welcomed by whites in my area where I live. Though few of the same ones mistreat my mom but don't punch her. It's mostly her long Los angeles trips that worry me too many crazy racist hating on Latinos/Asians/blacks.



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Machiavellian said:
RolStoppable said:

Cool, now we are getting robbery/rape advice on VGC.

Not sure if that could be defined as robbery or rape, as easy prey can be a very broad title.  For all you know, they would shoot you just for stepping on their nice shoes or bumping into them or giving them direct eye contact.  You only assume its limited to just those 2 specific cases. As far as the advice, it means never underestimate or assume anything else you be six feet under asking GOD how you got here.

Yet another day where I am grateful that I don't live in the USA.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

SegaHeart said:
Machiavellian said:

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.

Bolded I'm not educated in this but are these strong woman from any specific state I do like the idea of a woman defending herself from a rapist from a bypassing truck trying to kidnap but instead gets lead. I hate kidnappers thinking certain woman are easy to deal with. I haven't thought about woman using a gun for self defence until now I mostly think about clubs I go to (Rarely) and thinking if I dance with a random girl the boyfriend will shoot me. happens alot in California so many clubs and Cantina's shut down because of jealous boyfriends killing another man? I think woman should be more allowed on guns than a man? I might change the Idea of not wanting guns? I remember a crazy racist punching my mom because she looked mexican it was the sun that made her brown, though the sun can't make me brown because my skin pigmentation is barely affected by sun so I always look Light skinned and welcomed by all races mostly welcomed by whites in my area where I live. Though few of the same ones mistreat my mom but don't punch her. It's mostly her long Los angeles trips that worry me too many crazy racist hating on Latinos/Asians/blacks.

Naw, its not a matter of being strong, its  matter of feeling safe.  It just so happen I have read way to many conservative that believe just because some people have liberal ideals or vote on certain subjects mean they  would not resort to extreme measures to protect themselves which is a fallacy.  That is like saying just because someone calls themselves a Christian and go to Church they do not carry a gun and would not send you to the afterlife if they feel threaten.  I know many woman that carry and most are Christian woman.



Machiavellian said:
SegaHeart said:

Bolded I'm not educated in this but are these strong woman from any specific state I do like the idea of a woman defending herself from a rapist from a bypassing truck trying to kidnap but instead gets lead. I hate kidnappers thinking certain woman are easy to deal with. I haven't thought about woman using a gun for self defence until now I mostly think about clubs I go to (Rarely) and thinking if I dance with a random girl the boyfriend will shoot me. happens alot in California so many clubs and Cantina's shut down because of jealous boyfriends killing another man? I think woman should be more allowed on guns than a man? I might change the Idea of not wanting guns? I remember a crazy racist punching my mom because she looked mexican it was the sun that made her brown, though the sun can't make me brown because my skin pigmentation is barely affected by sun so I always look Light skinned and welcomed by all races mostly welcomed by whites in my area where I live. Though few of the same ones mistreat my mom but don't punch her. It's mostly her long Los angeles trips that worry me too many crazy racist hating on Latinos/Asians/blacks.

Naw, its not a matter of being strong, its  matter of feeling safe.  It just so happen I have read way to many conservative that believe just because some people have liberal ideals or vote on certain subjects mean they  would not resort to extreme measures to protect themselves which is a fallacy.  That is like saying just because someone calls themselves a Christian and go to Church they do not carry a gun and would not send you to the afterlife if they feel threaten.  I know many woman that carry and most are Christian woman.

In my state many Christian woman in California in my area don't carry a gun, mostly the latina's don't carry a gun not even the Christian men and I used to go to the their church's. Oh man, I'd give $100 donate so god will bless me in the future more money.



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

RolStoppable said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure if that could be defined as robbery or rape, as easy prey can be a very broad title.  For all you know, they would shoot you just for stepping on their nice shoes or bumping into them or giving them direct eye contact.  You only assume its limited to just those 2 specific cases. As far as the advice, it means never underestimate or assume anything else you be six feet under asking GOD how you got here.

Yet another day where I am grateful that I don't live in the USA.

You should continue to thank whatever GOD that it remains that way.  The US is not the same place its advertised to be.  There is the marketing and then there is the reality.