The need for world government

Post by imustbeevil » Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 1:41 PM UTC

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #92

thomassmith65 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what would be the global policy on abortion? Probably none. I agree with the author that we need world government, but it would be stupid to have the highest level of government stipulate all laws for every nation, state, province, county, town and village beneath it.

One could say that about the Americans but they do it almost compulsively, and completely ignore levels of government where nearly everything actually happens. Many current American problems are locally managed including housing and real estate but so much energy goes to the President, partly because he -pertains to- so many people. Many people are explicit that whatever is on their minds must be done “nationally”. W…

Post by kaba0 » Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 1:50 PM UTC

zthrowaway wrote: post #62

sofixa wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mother decided to have unprotected sex Or she was raped, or nobody taught her anything but religious abstinence bullshit and she didn't even know the ramifications. > The body inside her body is not hers So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.

Rape is less than 2% of abortions. Even then, because my father was a horrible person I shouldn’t have to die for it. We don’t need to use rare edge cases to validate the 98% of abortions which are out of convenience. I’m not talking about abstinence, plenty of birth control options are available. Men need to take more responsibility and wear a condom. > So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens…

Post by tasuki » Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 2:46 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #104

thecolorblew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Abortion is murder. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines. See how silly you’re being? The parent comment already shared that large parts of the world have different values. I’d be curious of your take when your proposed value isn’t chosen and there is no recourse.

In no other case is a human being, living or dead , legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. Corpses have more bodily autonomy than women after Dobbs.

Post by danaris » Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #105

danaris wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In no other case is a human being, living or dead , legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. Corpses have more bodily autonomy than women after Dobbs.

I do not understand your comment. > In no other case is a human being, living or dead, legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. In many other cases are humans legally required to literally risk their lives for another human being. Would you like me to give you examples? > Corpses have more bodily autonomy than wom…

Post by thomassmith65 » Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 3:05 PM UTC

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #102

thomassmith65 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s to stop this pattern from repeating at a greater scale? A well-designed constitution would be a start. Not that there is an air-tight guarantee that a government won't turn bad. But we currently have over a half dozen governments with nuclear weapons. On the whole, I'd rather just worry about one.

One you can’t leave