TheBitcoinBattery on Nostr: I apologize for my less collected final paragraph from my last message. Other than ...

I apologize for my less collected final paragraph from my last message. Other than your views being similar to those following religious ideologies, there's nothing directly tying what you said to religion. I was assuming but am glad you are not religious.

I obviously do not agree that abortions are murder, abortions are induced miscarriages and even if not induced somewhere between 10 - 40% of pregnancies naturally miscarry. There are significant problems with making abortion illegal, including that women who miscarry naturally sometimes get prosecuted for a crime they did not commit when they are already suffering a loss that's just made worse by the legal system.

There are also higher risks involved with birth than with abortion, with more women dying in childbirth than through abortion. Doctor's and their patients should be allowed to have final say on this not only due to that general risk, but it would also avoid cases we see where the pregnancy has a high likelihood of becoming life threatening if not terminated early but the doctor's are too afraid of legal prosecution to proceed with necessary treatment to save the woman.

Fetuses are not babies, not while they threaten the life and well being of the women carrying them. Women with true bodily autonomy should not be compelled to risk their lives and well being to bring to term a fetus they do not want or are not equipped to care for just because they had sex. This is not good for the woman or the child born to a home with no love for them.

Until we advance technologically enough to support fetuses outside the womb (and advance economically enough to support them to adulthood without putting undo burden on anyone through more taxes that pay for the support of children without willing parents), then removing consent unfortunately leads to the death of the fetus. Consent for sex does not equal consent to maintain life threatening pregnancy. But I know you disagree on this, so let's agree to disagree.

Also, even though we disagree so far (and you rudely keep calling my responses nonsense when they are not, with the exception of the last paragraph in my previous message), you have my respect for engaging on a touchy subject for as long as we have.

In response to the land/voting issue:

Voting is what ultimately makes the rules, so if only those who own land can vote then only those who own land can make the rules. Now just because I do not agree that ONLY those who own land should vote, doesn't mean I disagree on your principle view that only those who are invested in the jurisdiction should be able to vote on its policies. I actually agree with you partially.

Personally I like the idea that you only get a vote once you live in a jurisdiction for a period of let's say 5 years, you get another vote if you purchase and live on that land as well for that 5 years. So after 5 years renters invested their time, while owners invested both their time and money (which is just preserved time). After maybe 10 more years each would get another vote or 2 based on these criteria and then after maybe another 20 years another.

This would allow those less invested due to financial circumstances a chance to vote based on their time invested alone which I think is fair. It also provides a decent amount of time lag before changes of law could occur due to high levels of immigration, providing some level of legal stability to current citizens whose voting power would also increase as the new residents gain voting power.

This is another reason I like Blockchain tech, because only those who actually invest time and effort to run nodes get to influence the direction of the network by participating in the consensus of network updates. Users don't get to vote, they just to benefit from the network as it is.

Back to the draft, seems we overall agree. However the selective service was started by Congress in 1940, it was not voted on by the public, only 1 representative was female and she did vote yea although it would've passed without her vote anyway.

I don't understand your position or justification to remove women from being able to vote in their representative government based on an act that was passed by almost entirely men that applied to only men, and that the public has no say in. Regardless I'm glad we agree that it is an atrocious act that essentially legalized randomized slavery into war and it should be repealed.