Jump to content

Clear World

Member
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Clear World

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Sacred Stones

Member Badge

  • Members
    Caeda

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Archanea

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm just going to post this video to provide an overall view on why America has a 2-party system.
  2. You're not pro-life when this is your stance. You're pro-choice. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to be willing to kill your own fetus. It just means you accept that the option should be available for people if the situation forces it. A lot of people seems to think Pro-Life means "not killing fetus". It might to a degree, but what Pro-Life heavily mean is being against the legalization of elective abortions. It's not a zero-sum argument. That would apply some positive gain in the situation, which abortion rarely is. Abortion most times come into play because both path sucks and the mother+family might see aborting the fetus being the lesser of two awfulness.
  3. Can you two like stop talking about saving babies over saving fetus. This is just being stuck on debating on the issue of when person-hood begins, which isn't that important about abortion. If you want an actual thought experiment, it would be more like this: Using the Trolly Problem as a base to explain the situation, it would be, you have a trolly on a track heading towards a mother + family (which includes spouse, already existing kids, & fetus) that are tied to the track. The mother+family has access to a control that would cause the trolly to only hit the fetus, killing it. The mother+family might be able to absorb most of the trolly impact and survive, but they will certainly be all harmed with decade long crippling injuries. Due to the mother being at the front, she is in the most in danger and to feel most of the effects. The Pro-Choice side is: This is a tough decision without a clear answer. Therefore, it would be best to let the mother+family decides what is the best call in this terrible situation. As the mother is the one in the most risk, she is the one who should get the largest say & the one who gets to press the button unless there are strong case otherwise like maybe, the mother is only 10 years old, in which case, maybe her parents might be the one who makes the final call. The Pro-Life side is: Don't let the mother+family have access to the control. Because it is moral to not kill a fetus, we cannot let others have the option to kill a fetus (ignoring the fact that the trolly still might end up killing the fetus if the trolly harms the family).
  4. That isn't what the debate hinges on. Most, if not all, aren't advocating to kill fetus because they aren't people. If you think that, then you don't understand what pro-choice side is actually advocating. You miss what pro-choice is actually about, and is already trapped in the right-wing talking point. The debate hinges on how to weigh the fetus against the livelihood of the mother + family (which includes spouse(s), already existing kids, & fetus that may be birth). The right-wing talking point is to completely ignore the mother + family. Fetus above all else, ignore what complications and/or personal tragedies going through with the pregnancy will most likely cause. They don't want to talk about the other aspect of this debate, because they don't want to offer any solutions to those issues. Nearly all pro-choice is about trying to prevent a terrible situation from getting worst for the family (including the potential newborn). It's two awful options, but at least with the option of abortion, the mother + family could avoid a even worst situation/fate. The ideal situation would to reduce those terrible situations so the mother/family doesn't have to make the abortion choice at all, but due to America's general lack of health care, financial safety nets + support, and poor foster care system, the mother + family has to weigh if going through the pregnancy will result in the mother + family getting themselves into a terrible hole that they and potential future offspring made never climb out of if they go through a pregnancy, such as: Death or severe long-lasting health issues for the mother. Having to go through a 9 month period to give birth to a child that the mother had no say/choice in conceiving (a.k.a, rape) Gaining a massive debt they can't repay due to hospital bills and/or unable to physically work. Crippling the mother + family livelihood which can include already existing kids & the newborn. The pregnant woman is unable to attend school/college because she's pregnant thus harshly crippling her education which can & often severely limiting/capping what jobs are open for her to make a living and raise her children. If the mother was a single mother with kids and dies due to the pregnancy, this leaves kids with zero parental figures and stuck in a foster care system that doesn't get the financial support & resources to maintain the already hundred of thousands of kids already in it (many of which never find a new family), with roughly 1 out of 5 of them becoming homeless, 1 of 4 getting involved in criminal activities within 2 years after leaving foster care, 50% not even able to graduate out of high-school, . The time & energy commitment it takes to raise a newborn is a lot, and if they already any of those issues listed above, all the mother's + families issues becomes worst.
  5. @Armchair GeneralI'm just going to post this here. The anti-abortion group National Right to Life (NRLC) has released a model bill (pdf) meant to be used by state legislatures to restrict abortion in nearly all instances in the new post-Roe America. “We recommend prohibiting abortion except to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” the NRLC document begins. If someone otherwise causes an abortion, the model law would charge them with a Level 2 felony. Language like this would cover doctors who perform an abortion, unlicensed “black market” abortion providers, and anyone who provides an abortion pill to a pregnant woman. Aiding or abetting an illegal abortion should include, but not be limited to: (1) giving instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion; (3) hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion; (4) offering or providing illegal “abortion doula” services; and (5) providing referrals to an illegal abortion provider. The NRLC goes further, recommending that anyone who “aids or abets an illegal abortion” be subject to the same criminal penalties. Note: Anyone who hosts a website with, for example, reporting on the availability of abortion pills would be subject to criminal and civil penalties for “aiding or abetting” an abortion. This legislation would attack the entire informational infrastructure around abortion. Like with the “Don’t Say Gay” and anti-CRT bills, the vagueness in the language is intentional. -------- Also, abortion bounties. Another conservative activist group, the Thomas More Society, is drafting model legislation based on already existing Texas’ bounty law that would target those who help an individual cross state lines to obtain an abortion. (The Washington Post) The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, led by Republican state legislators, is also reportedly working on a similar bill by collaborating with the authors of the Texas abortion ban. Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R), president of the group, said—without evidence—that without bounties on crossing state lines for abortions, people were going to be “trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies.”
  6. I'm just going to second what @Tybrosion said. Imo, that would be the sensible choice. Though, I would also include that it could always be possible that they just make Three Hopes it's own category for whatever reason. As in like, they plan on milking game that as much as possible so they get to release all these familiar Three Houses characters who now has different designs, but now under the Three Hopes banners.
  7. Welp. Roe v Wade has officially been overturned now. Abortion will soon be banned across much of red-state America with all the already established trigger laws that has been waiting for this moment. CNN - Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
  8. This is going to be blunt. You sound like a bigot. The fact that you 'insist' on keep calling them by their old name implies they asked you to stop calling them that, but you're just refusing. The fact that you wrote, "So my religious values are at odds with secular values which say that being prejudiced is worse." & how you defer to your 'Christian values' makes it feel pointless to engage with you. You don't sound like an ally, and I definitely wouldn't trust you to not screw them over while they are under consistent attacks by the actual government & evangelical Christians. Because whether or not they intentionally engage in gossips, rumors, or slanders, it looks like trans people can't stop being ostracized and under assault by your religion and bible because they are trans. ---- 42 States Have Considered or Passed Anti-Abortion or Anti-Trans Laws This Year Top Texas Court Allows Rule that: "Gender-Affirming Medical treatments to transgender youths constitutes child abuse" Conservatives are increasingly imposing government control over sexuality and gender
  9. Everyone looks at the defense attorney singing the most joyous song on how the witness committed the murder, got the head coroner to assist with the plan, revealing a decade old conspiracy, and frame her client. ... Prosecutor: Your honor, this is why I don't take those filthy Nipponese seriously.
  10. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The ONION
  11. Draft Opinion shows Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights
  12. I just want to add-on to GuardianSing's post as it already alludes to my general opinion on the matter. The issue isn't that objecting women in media exist but rather how it became so prevalent and/or dominate in the consumable mass media, which doesn't even include the fact that objectification of women also tend to have huge negative impact for a lot women in the real world. If there were a large array of various depictions of women, either rich or flat but hopefully overall positive that easily outweigh the objectification, the entire objectification of a woman within a single story wouldn't be that big of a deal. But that's not the situation we're in. Edward Cullen and Jacob Black. Though, I'm pretty sure if you venture more into media that really aims at a female demographic, you would find more examples. Though Twilight is really the only 'recent' franchise I can think of at the top my head that had actually like entered the public zeitgeist. On another some-what not related to the topic, but I think it is important to consider in regards to objectification, after watching "Turning Red" (the Pixar film), it dawn on me that a large portion of popular culture that I grew up in was making fun and/or insulting the things that was geared towards a female demographic and/or the girls that took part it. That attitude definitely didn't help the general deception of women.
  13. Anonymous leaks database of the Russian Ministry of Defense I don't know what kind of overall effect this will have, but this is interesting to say the least.
  14. Clear World

    Sues you like

    You didn't understand my post as I clearly pointed out, that's not how I define 'Sue'' and I made it a point to say I was using my definition. Being perfect means nothing to me when regarding 'Sue's. I put Kylo Ren as a Sue because of the third movie. The entire story structure, characters' arc & universe that the first two movie has established changes so he can get an easy redemption arc even though he has caused so much utter destruction and heavily backtracks/ignore/retcons all his character growth in the first two movies. That is why I consider him a Sue. The third film is so warped with so many bad ass-pulls to accommodate his character, to the point that Rey (the actual main character) & the other protagonists barely gets a character arc or even completed story arcs. In such sense, I see JJ Abrams twisting the story to heavily favor a particular character which so happen to be Kylo Ren. Except it has been often used as code for "i don't like this character', that's why it got that negative connotation. Regardless if you want it to exist or not, it exists. Besides, we already have a lot of terms that fits the mold of its many differing definition of a mary sue that is far less messy & narrow scoop such as: - Perfect, The Ace, Idealized, Infallible, Power Fantasy, Author Avatar, Self-Insert, Protagonist If you want to use this term in a 'constructive manner', my personal suggesting would be to not use the term at all, and instead use a more defined term that better illustrate whatever you're trying to say.
  15. Oklahoma Bill Would Pay Parents $10K Each Day Their Nominated Banned Books Remain in Libraries
×
×
  • Create New...