MTG Calls for Red State Secession

Yes, we accepted that some parents suck and found a way to help the children. Does that mean as technology improves and we can save these babies through artificial wombs, that you support saving all savable aborted fetuses?

If you want to
 
I did think of the velvet divorce as an example. Not sure the USSR should count seeing as they used violent reprisals as for as long as they could.
Good point. I was thinking of the 90's and overlooked what they did to Hungary e.g. in the 50's.
 
If you want to

You’re avoiding the obvious question here. It’s weak.

There is no option to legally allow your baby to starve. If you do so you will go to jail. So we have established a way for people to surrender their child legally, that you eluded to.

If the ability to keep a fetus alive is there (for some abortions that ability is already here), should the child be allowed to simply die or should we establish a similar system?
 
You’re avoiding the obvious question here. It’s weak.

There is no option to legally allow your baby to starve. If you do so you will go to jail. So we have established a way for people to surrender their child legally, that you eluded to.

If the ability to keep a fetus alive is there (for some abortions that ability is already here), should the child be allowed to simply die or should we establish a similar system?
You don’t have to feed your baby because you can leave it at a fire station. So you have no such obligation
 
You don’t have to feed your baby because you can leave it at a fire station. So you have no such obligation

Obviously there’s an obligation. Taking the child to a fire station is an obligation.

Why would a similar obligation not apply to abortion? If the child is unwanted, but we can establish a system to save the child, why wouldn’t we?

Why do you only see that obligation as existing in one instance?
 
If states can vote another state to stay in the union against their will, do you believe we should be able to vote states in against their will too?

I'd love to be able to hit up a few more places without a passport.

When has Congress added a state without its consent?
 
If states can vote another state to stay in the union against their will, do you believe we should be able to vote states in against their will too?

I'd love to be able to hit up a few more places without a passport.
Have you not heard my plans for an American Empire that spans both Americas and Australia? And Japan, just for the hell of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
They've also never said a state has to stay without their consent. Yet you believe they should be able, right?
I do.

Edit: as to the bolded statement, I do believe there was some kind of dust-up about that a long time ago. It got pretty messy.
 
Last edited:
Obviously there’s an obligation. Taking the child to a fire station is an obligation.

Why would a similar obligation not apply to abortion? If the child is unwanted, but we can establish a system to save the child, why wouldn’t we?

Why do you only see that obligation as existing in one instance?

Because you are infringing upon the rights of the woman. At any other point, a woman can choose to not have her rights infringed upon further.
 
Because you are infringing upon the rights of the woman. At any other point, a woman can choose to not have her rights infringed upon further.

You’re ignoring the question still. Why is there not an obligation in this instance but there is an obligation in the other?

Edit: Because both are infringing upon the mother. Taking a child to the FD, no matter how low level, is still an obligation.
 
Last edited:
You’re ignoring the question still. Why is there not an obligation in this instance but there is an obligation in the other?

There is no obligation. Unless you want to compare the obligation to take a drug to induce labor with the obligation to travel to the fire station.
 

VN Store



Back
Top