Plisken

It is the pragmatically arbitrary pathway that needs to be taken because of how an institution involves itself as a necessary aspect in peoples' business.

Should the valid abortion seekers have to be involved at all with red tape?

That was just posted to note your false claim.  In fact, you were the first to mention and I am asking questions about what you are saying.

Note: The right to bear arms is only applied against the government in the United States. If you can't get a gun, grow a tooth or something.  After you've armed yourself, use them to sharpen a stick.

Post #54

The sentence you partially quoted from my post #71  ends with "like the woman should".  

 I am curious about your philosophy and you did mention being armed, implying self defense, just like you mentioned adoption.  So you think the professional procedure of abortion should be 100% banned?  "Abortion should not be an option" 

Too bad, it is an option.  I suppose the kid best arm themself should the claims to the stuff their reliant upon be in dispute like the woman should.  Is that right?

It was said to be anonymous not too long ago, but apparently that changed

What do you guys talk about?

 Thats how I like to say it when I speak Britoneeze because it sounds funny, like aluminium.

I understand being open to life, but the Devine frustration in catholicism goes right over my head.  

How is adoption relevant to this matter?   If the father is present both parties would generally come to an agreement for adoption.  Why is that not the case according to you?

The father can do anything within his ability to anyone.  What are you trying to say?

 I mean the father who is responsible for the new child.

You are assuming the father is out of the picture

It's not.  You could report the next day, or if you really need to you can always send a private message.  

That sounds like an effective way for administration to reduce their workload while maintaining the integrity of moderation.  There could be a division of labor or heirchy to reduce the amount of bias in your preferred system.  Its not possible to ban members for spamming reports under current policy though, as far as I'm aware.  

Do you agree with where he stands?  How should he be punished for report spamming?  

That might be helpful.  I would suggest working whats appropriate with him via private message so this thread doesn't turn this thread into a #### show of accusations and defense. Do you believe Drafterman should be banned for his reporting?

I would assume report spam is an attempt to render moderation efforts ineffective by overloading their capacity.  

Standard users do not have the authority to use reports abusively....we can persuade the mods or we can just be generally stupid.  

There are benefits to anomininity, for example if someone is unpopular or made a statement in the past that won't be considered in judgement.  There is no risk of intimidation, and moderators have less problems to go wrong.   What benefits are there to cutting out anonomous reporting?

Is there a need for noobs to report better?  

I don't believe moderators get everyone's "type".  What potential harm is there in an anonymous report judged according to the rules?

I would prefer the option to remain anonymous over mandatory surrender of privacy.  

They can contact the users who made the report inappropriately, or they could dismiss reports by users they don't like/trust.

There should definitely be a system of writing.  

If you have a genuine need, moderators can receive private messages, right?

I have made an unanonomous report, and I have reason to believe bias was introduced.  The wording I received read with such explicit contradiction with the wording in the thread that I was discouraged from further communication, (no pressing need really) and elected not to question the matter, so I have no way of knowing what rationale was actually used.  It's possible for example that moderation dismissed the reported material with haste and the words were just chosen poorly for the topic of communication.  Unless someone has a reason for reports not to be anonymous I think they should be anonomous.  Disagreements could color appeals to moderation policy as well.  Moderators might perceive social implications with an individual that effect their judgement.  Morale is another consideration.

The state does not have the omniscience required for the sort of social justice people might envision as being proper.  There MUST be due process with respect to human rights for a law to be just, thus the state should be bound to its human limitations.

Yes to the debt system till reparations are made.  No, the state is not justified in penalizing a woman who refuses to raise your child.  

You find out who your friends are.  Good luck with the internet

What about the opposite way one could take that, calling the moon differently than you are used to?

Except on national holidays, and the hour of need.  America is more of a shared idea and there is no American culture, but Americans are cultured.

Bear in mind that these "terrorist" organizations opposed to the US are screwed if they don't come up with a way to weaken American military support.

If you ask Steve Bannon he would probably say that Trump expresses himself so that people will irrationally over extend their position.  I don't know if that's a political narration or a founded strategy.  Similar behavior has been observed in the uphill movement for equal rights, to rile the establishment and get the worst of the bunch out of the woodwork.  

I saw a story for someone who wanted to preserve the wall prototypes made to Trump specification as art, called it minimalism I think.  Have you seen the videos posted up by the former president of Mexico?

Holding liberal views doesn't mean someone is a hypocritical democrat or whatever.  You really don't know much about someone because they say "liberal".  Different people come to their conclusions differently than you do.

If you talk long enough with a true supporter of Roe eventually you will be told about abortion being a fundamental right in the way that bearing arms is.  Not just because of sovereignty over our body, but as a course of family planning it is a central element to womens' liberty, the palladium of womens' rights.

"The state's interest in life really does not outweigh our human rights though and an abortion can't legally be equovocated with murder without extending rights.  It's a medical procedure."

Do you understand what this is saying?  It is in concurrence with an aspect of Roe v Wade.  I wasn't taking a political position so if I thought otherwise I would say so.  I'm acknowledging that authoritarian legislation would need an amendment to the constitution to survive under the expansive juristiction of the constitution when it was authorized for lower governing bodies.

Americans of varying political persuasion should be aware of their constitutional rights.  It helps us make informed decisions regarding the law of the land.

There is no fundamental right to abortion and that is not merely a claim.  I apologize if that makes you feel offended.

I am speaking to reduce the effect of lies.

I understand that the American court system does not have the legal framework to question abortion.

I don't.

Actually, the immediate issue is denying so-called doctors the right to do what they want to her body.

 The constitution also fundamentally protects human life from legislation, and dignity (on US soil)

There is not a fundamental right to an abortion silly.....that''s not how it works, and that's why there''s a legal mess.  The state's interest in life really does not outweigh our human rights though and an abortion can't legally be equovocated with murder without extending rights.  It's a medical procedure.  

Obviously there is no constitutional right to abortion and we should have elected representatives handling progressive issues.  The court system needs to do its job and the legislature does as well.  I wouldn't say that makes unenumerated rights something that should be considered constitutionally irrelevant.

 It's important to keep in mind that we aren't just attacking an evil precedent, that there may be liabilities in office, conflicts of interest 

The higher issue for me in constitutional precedent, is to found a relationship in which the people are sovereign and the governing agents are fearful.  I respect the difference of opinion between the residents and representatives of the states as long as it is appropriate in juristiction.  I think if I could speak on behalf of the genuinely concerned, it would be to the idea that it's possible the states would no longer be limited to regulating the healthcare industry when it comes to our bodies, thus the people could be subjected to violations by the state.

Reposting

American translation?  ->Ask not what what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country

What Macron is thinking ->  If Americans don't get tired of winning, France might have to learn how to take care of itself for the first time in well....I better say this in a way that states the need to step up for independance without making concessions.