OOC: Ah, I had forgotten the politeness, courtesy, and mutual respect of your debating style in the Forum, Ebowed. Oh wait, I can't forget what isn't there...
{via teleconference to the Pacific Legislature}
Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ends the life of a living being. Why are you only focusing on the third trimester?
Because all arguments about viability and the like are more pointed at this point - the fetus could clearly survive. Furthermore, by this point there has been plenty of time for someone to have gotten an abortion and their lack of responsibility is rather apparent by then. While I never think that abortion is a good thing, I am showing moderation in that I am not trying to ban it entirely - there is enough of a case for personal choice that I will not interfere in the first trimester, will allow rape/incest/verified health cases in the second trimester, and always allow life of the mother cases. Not that you give a sh!t about moderation.
Yes, because the law leaves the decision up to the woman. Her choice does not need to be validated by the public as to whether it's "acceptable" or not.
And that is a radical opinion. Are you arguing that it isn't radical? Even China and India finally enacted bans on sex-selective abortions after seeing what the results of allowing them were.
You know, I don't really care. The bill passed this legislature, and that's what matters here.
Yes, you and your JCP clique certainly get whatever they want, don't they? I have a bit more on that below...
Wait, so you think women will wait until they're seven months pregnant to get an abortion now? Your logic sucks, and it's not even backed up by the statistics. States with third trimester abortion bans have the same very low rate as those without. Now, do you honestly think that women remain pregnant as long as they can? Do you know anything about pregnancy?
If something is allowed that wasn't allowed before, then it will be used more. The statistics you cite are in an environment where there are restrictions on third trimester abortions. If there are no restrictions, do you think the rate would remain the same? There is a point of principle about giving official sanction to things as well. And if the rate of third trimester abortion bans is so damn low, then why do you insist on keeping them legal? And I'll return the question back to you, since personal attacks seem to be your preferred form of interaction.
There are many reasons to ban the death penalty, including but not limited to moral ones. I do not necessarily see abortion as immoral; just because you do, remember that not everyone shares the same opinion. If you have a problem with the way this legislature voted, you are free to propose legislation to change it.
And what are the non-moral reasons to ban the death penalty? "Everyone does not necessarily share the same opinion" is a stance you should have considered before proposing radical legislation, now isn't it? And your JCP clique will vote for anything you propose...likely the reason you moved to the Pacific in the first place. The hammerlock on the Pacific Legislature is assured, and you know very well no legislation of mine changing anything will pass the bloc voting in place.
Yes, I am aware that it is within the right of a government to establish theocracy. What exactly is your point?
Ooh, ad hominem attack, on false grounds at that. Such maturity from an Atlasian Senator.
How is allowing a government to put "In God We Trust" on currency establishing a theocracy? I shall be using this as an example below. How is allowing a government to express an opinion other than Secular Humanism theocratic? How is this
an establishment of religion? Note that I don't prohibit atheists from putting "In No God We Trust" on currency if they happen to be in power. Note that I also allow people of faith to put "In God We Trust" back on currency if they gain power. I, however, don't prohibit atheists from
ever removing "In God We Trust" by law. Note that I don't prohibit other religious groups, if they gain power, from putting "In Vishnu We Trust" on the currency if they gain power either. Do you understand what I mean about a cacophony of voices yet?
The public sphere is open to the public and thus religion can be celebrated and displayed by anyone in public.
That would be the private sphere, on the individual level. The public sphere covers all governmental entities. Or are your definitions different? If the public sphere doesn't include government, then where are you putting the government?
A good government shouldn't need to ask for loyalty with a pre-written statement of support. If someone truly supports their government, they can write their own "pledge."
You want the government to be able to celebrate faith, yet if the government were to celebrate outright atheism, you would consider this "intrusive secularism", despite desperate attempts to compare atheism to religion whenever possible. Where is the consistency in this? If you want the government to celebrate faith so much, why don't you write a bill to bring the caste system to the Pacific?
Your opinion, not fact.
No, if you bothered to pay attention the government can declare "Atheist Day" if it wants to. Or make the Festival of Lights a holiday. I don't forbid the government from doing these things, as long as it doesn't make law banning any of the other faiths (and yes, atheism is one of these) from ever doing the same thing. I related the stranglehold of the JCP already, and as for the claim that it would be a caste system - yet
another personal attack I see - is that not what you are doing, making religion "lesser" than secularism/atheism by saying the one is not allowable in government but the other is?
Given the tone of the Senator I can see that this will never end until everything in the Pacific is exactly the way his JCP clique desires. And given their resistance to the desires of the citizens of New Mexico to leave their vicious Region I can see other actions will have to be taken.
Note that this is via teleconference, from Albuquerque. Per the will of the citizens of New Mexico, a doctrine of
State Nullification is in effect. New Mexico reserves the right to determine for itself which Regional laws are in effect within its boundaries.
Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the
Reproductive Freedom Act is declared null and void.
Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act is declared null and void.
Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the
Alcohol Freedom Act is declared null and void.
Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the
Religious Freedom Act is declared null and void.
Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the
Resolution Concerning Currency is declared null and void.
In anticipation of the likely cessation of what revenues the Pacific Government provides to the State of New Mexico, the State of New Mexico hereby ceases the transmission of any and all taxes, fees, tariffs, and any other revenue to the Pacific Government.
And the citizens of New Mexico once again affirm our desire to join the Midwestern Region. Given that Regions are not even specified in the new Constitution under debate, the idea that New Mexico should be forced to remain in a Region under the rules of a Constitution that is about to become obsolete is ridiculous. Regional affiliation should be voluntary, not forced. The State of New Mexico is reminding the government of the Pacific of this fact.
[OOC: Ante up, pilgrims. Aces wild.
Game Moderator Al, certain provisions are now in effect.
]
OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now.
[OOC: Nothing personal.
*hughughug* You have more material to work with now.
Get to work on finding appropriate pictures!
]
