• expired

[PC] Indie Bundle for Abortion Funds - 792 DRM-Free Games/Projects - US$10.00 Minimum @ Itch.io

17827

itch.io is running a jumbo bundle inspired by recent US events. $10 minimum purchase price for 790+ items, with more to be added until the 7th of July.

100% of the proceeds from this bundle will go to the National Network for Abortion Fund's Collective Power Fund, which moves money directly to abortion funds across 20+ U.S. states, with a particular focus on the South and Midwest (where it is often most difficult to get access to abortions). NNAF’s partnerships with these abortion funds provide direct resources and funds to many of the people most impacted by Roe v. Wade, towards immediate action.

All games are DRM-free, and can be downloaded and installed from the itch.io website. No Steam keys or similar are provided.

I haven't yet perused the list for good items (or sought out posts from people that have done so), but feel free to share in the comments.

Related Stores

itch.io
itch.io

Comments

  • +44

    So woke it hurts!

    • +20

      Shock horror that Ozbargain is mostly angry straight dudes. The upvotes in these comments are pretty gross.
      Make sure you tell the women in your life you don't care about their rights.

      • -6

        I agree with this, women should have a choice in parenthood. HER BODY, HER CHOICE!!!

        But in fairness, when it comes to child support, if both parties don't agree with having the baby, the court should not just force the biological father to pay (if it's out of wedlock). MY MONEY, MY CHOICE!!!

        Because if women can have the right to end a life, men should have the right to keep their money too! Only fair and just no… it's all about equality guys!!!

        Oh btw, also when it comes to gender imbalances and unfairness, there's like 95%+ bloke as brick layers, I really think the feminist should fight to get it to 50/50 ratio!!! Brick layers pay well too guys!!! LET'S GET IT!!! 👊

        Now watch the neg wave comes… 3… 2… 1… despite arguments actually having points ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • +25

          Poor guy is missing an arm.

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          • +4

            @ihfree: Would make for a busy bricklayer.

        • +7

          Ruined your arguement with the bricklayer bit.

          I do agree there is a strong arguement that a one night stand or a brief fling should not lead to a lifetime of payments for a kid you never wanted. Seperate issue, but definately worth the discussion.

          • +3

            @FabMan: You are right. It's past midnight, not my best comment. But I'm glad the message I'm trying to get across is understood by some.

            Yea, the bricklayer part is a bit of a sideshow, but what I'm trying to get at is, first and second wave feminist are actually doing the world a lot of goods and I fully support their endeavour. The third wave (2000 and after), their agenda are sometimes more toxic than good, with a lot of dual standards thrown.

            Not sure if anyone is getting that part, but I hope some of you noticed the hypocrisy (re: bricklayers - something that's clearly an undesirable job - but yet no one fighting tooth and nails for gender quota on that job? I wonder why… - meant to be rhetorical question).

            Anyway I rest my case.

            • -2

              @WillKillfor5Cents: The issue is that you're shitting on women's rights in order to make a point about men's rights. They're not mutually exclusive. You may have a valid point, but it's the wrong place, wrong time. If you're passionate about it bring it up in a new forum post.

            • @WillKillfor5Cents: Don't know about bricklaying is something that's clearly an undesirable job I have mates that love bricklaying. I've helped them out from time to time and it's not the job for me though.

              I had a well paying office job easy physically but I hated it I'm much happier now outdoors doing a wide range of jobs.

            • -1

              @WillKillfor5Cents: You sound really angry for no reason. No one is arguing for any gender quotas on specific job roles. They are arguing for it in the industry. Bricklaying is not an industry to itself but is part of the construction industry. And it's clear that we should be opening more doors for women into the construction industry as the data on the economic enhancement of women to the workplace is outstanding. As you live in a society and should care about how people contribute to the overall economy you actually have an incentive for others to do well so that they shoulder some of your tax burden. Having people unemployed, underemployed or underpaid is not good for anyone because at the end of the day we all have a tax burden that she share amongst one another.

              Calling it hypocrisy because no one specifically calls for quotas amongst bricklayers is ridiculous. It's a bad faith argument and shows a general misunderstanding of the issues at hand. What would be good is if we look at a job like bricklaying - which is a hard difficult job - and ensure that similar hard difficult jobs that are traditionally serviced by women, like child care or aged care, are as well structured in pay and quality. Again, we all end up having an incentive to ensure that we are all looking after one another as we are all ultimately bound together by a social structure which we share. Being an angry person because you don't understand the issues isn't reasonable. Maybe ask more questions. Do more research. Inform yourself about things more. Take a break from posting things online and just actually read and study.

      • +1

        Women don't have a "right" to kill babies. Gross.

        • +1

          Who is talking about babies? A fetus does not have the right to use another persons body (the mother) against their will. Same as parents aren't forced to donate blood or organs to their children after birth.

        • -1

          Why not read a biology book or two?

          • +4

            @FabMan: Why, do they tell you when an appropriate time to kill a baby is? When's good for you?

            • @WrightRightWriteRite: They educate the ignorant, like you. Same Doctors that have treated your illnesses over your life, the show clumps of cells aren't babies. Worst problem with this world, ignorance.

              • +1

                @FabMan: When do you think human life begins?

                • +1

                  @ozhunter: Begins? Honestly I'm not completely sure any age I give will satisfy you. Definately not before week 10, it is an embryo.

                  I would think at an age it can survive without the mother I would class it as a human life, 26 weeks, though with luck and strong medical intervention 22 weeks. After an age a baby could survive without the mother I reckon an abortion should only happen if the mother has a high chance of being disabled or killed by the pregnancy / birth.

                  Sometime in between those weeks I'd let doctors decide what is the age they determine is right due to evidence they have investigated on. Not religious men who feel offended someone made a choice for themselves.

                  • +1

                    @FabMan: Sorry to revive an slightly old and highly contentious thread - but your post I think highlights a popular view and is therefore important.
                    It seems from this comment that you think the unborn are not entitled to the rights of humans up to week ten, they are from week 22, and that those rights accrue somewhere between those two points - and that the exact point it occurs is a medical decision. Would that be fair?
                    I think many people probably agree with your position - but I'm not sure how it is internally consistent.
                    If doctors decided that the unborn should not have the same rights as humans after 22 weeks - would your position change, despite knowing that is roughly the point of viability? Doctors are not always the best judges of things like ethics, morality, or the law, and their positions change based on increased information (and sometimes external pressure) - as the rapidly changing medical position on COVID illustrated.
                    If the rights arrive sometime between 10 and 22 weeks - and given the fallibility of doctors - how could you ever be sure that any abortion between those stages is not killing a life entitled to human rights? Wouldn't the safer thing then simply be to say that 10 weeks must be the limit because you are sure that they are not entitled to rights prior to that point?

                    • +1

                      @Almost Banned:

                      Would that be fair?

                      Definitely fair.

                      Doctors are not always the best judges of things like ethics, morality, or the law.

                      Good point.

                      rapidly changing medical position on COVID illustrated

                      Pandemics are not easy things to deal with, at the start there was a >5% mortality rate for catching COVID-19 and it was spreading easily, next hospitals were being flooded with COVID-19 patients dying horribly who were then infecting staff, and later many people with non-COVID-19 cases were not being able to access facilities due to numerous COVID-19 patients. Hard task to know that doing nothing will cost many lives and leave many people with long lasting symptoms but doing something will also cause significant public inconvenience, health issues for some people, and even a loss of life but at a much lower %. I'm glad I don't have to make such decisions. Many COVID-19 restrictions wouldn't have to happen if we weren't so selfish and stupid as a species, for example, a guy at my work showed up coughing claiming he had a cold but ended up giving numerous people at work COVID-19, causing one person to have really bad symptoms. Luckily we were in QLD and we all had our vaccines at our work by then, but look to the people meeting up in large numbers or going out sick to see why we had restrictions placed upon us.

                      how could you ever be sure that any abortion between those stages is not killing a life entitled to human rights?

                      I can't, there is so much in the world for me to know, I don't have the intellectual capacity to learn it all, and I definitely do not have enough time to try. I have to defer time and again to experts, those that have studied the subject for many years, who have examined the data we currently have as a society. Politicians try to (supposedly) do the best for the public by using expert advice to come up with laws. Of course they can be swayed by smooth talking professionals who represent the wishes of a business, or be selfish for short term popularity to get (re-)elected. The alternative is we go with gut feelings, which sounds like anarchy.

                      We may later find out we have done something wrong, but we do that constantly, think of lead, asbestos, smoking and many other once commonly used products that poisoned and killed many people. You may argue that we need to play it safe, but without progress we'd be using the horse and cart still. I think we should act upon the information we have at the time, while making an effort the gain information on the subject. Doctors have been looking into medical knowledge on pregnancy for centuries, it isn't a rush like the pandemic.

                      Abortions are not a new thing, a very old society need and act indeed, and people are going to seek it out from back alley operations if they have too. Even if not for the more understandable health or rape related reasons, people will want them for convenience, as life is hard enough for most people, having to add a very difficult and unwanted child is something that many men and women do not want, an early enough abortion is not killing a child. I can see one reason is avoiding judgement being passed on them, being mocked or scorned by their so called community. Even here some people that are anti-abortion are throwing shade on women for getting pregnant in the first place, which is part of the judgement people would want to avoid. It is funny that many people claim they want to protect life, but once born want to shit all over them when they get the opportunity, rather than offering compassion. To clarify, that wasn't aimed at you.

                      • @FabMan: Thanks for that Fab,
                        Given the above, surely the safe thing to do is set the limit at 10 weeks - your bottom limit - since it is possible that an abortion after that point is taking a human life?
                        Saying, 'well, we get things wrong all the time' isn't really an answer when we could simply avoid any risk of getting it wrong - given the seriousness of the outcome - by setting the limit at the bottom limit of potentiality.

                        • @Almost Banned: It you have a valid argument, I am definitely considering your points here. However, it hasn't changed my mind.

                          You are saying it may turn out later our current information is wrong and we are doing something wrong, and I get that, but the data we have doesn't show that. Denying access to abortions now, after 10 weeks will lead to serious problems, women who will die during childbirth, women who will serious physical and mental health issues, severely disabled children with no concept of existence requiring massive amounts of care where parents sacrifice their lives to raise this child, and children in the 'care' of parents who are abusive to them because they didn't want them. So erring on the side of caution of baby lives will cause issues with real people if you deny abortions of fetuses.

                          I know the argument and the idea about killing a baby, killing a child before it had a chance to have a life, it seems horrific, but the reality is every time a woman ovulates and a sperm doesn't fertilize it a child is denied it's potential existence. A potential child could be born of any healthy egg and sperm, being denied a human life is not the same as taking a human life. A couple wanting a kid may choose to hold off and try to conceive next month, think on what possible child could have been born if they made a different choice. Me and my wife have stopped having kids, how many great potential people have we denied existence by merely not conceiving? So, until it is a human, it isn't.

                          For me, the day I met both my kids I felt love for them, and I probably would have if they were premature at 26 weeks. However, for a while they seemed animalistic, primitive even, because all they did was eat, shit, and sleep. It is hard to explain but the personality part of their brain wasn't there for a while, the little people I have now, in my house, and that I just kissed goodnight did not have a rational human mind for a while, not for a long time after birth. Since both of my kids were late (39+ weeks each), I can believe that a 22 week baby isn't a 'human' yet, at least in brain functionality. I don't hold much value in a body without a brain, pull me off life support if my brain functions have ceased as I'm dead. But my opinion shouldn't matter, I think we should leave it to the experts.

              • -1

                @FabMan: OK, so it's clear you're eager to encourage women to kill their unborn and everyone who disagrees with your wildly morally bankrupt position is "ignorant". It's biology, man.

                • +1

                  @WrightRightWriteRite: You're an ignorant liar.

                  I have not encouraged anyone to have an abortion, rather the option should be available. You are desiring women to suffer for your own pleasure.

                  • -1

                    @FabMan: Supporting abortion is encouraging it. Own it. Don't back down now mate, you're on the gotcha "clump of cells" argument. Keep going, you're doing great job for women.

                    • +1

                      @WrightRightWriteRite: You're doing a great job of suppressing women and their rights.

                      • +2

                        @FabMan: Again, killing is not a right for women or men. Period. You're pro infanticide because you have no core ethics.

                        • +1

                          @WrightRightWriteRite: Lol. Australia already has legal abortion - roughly as described. That's not changing any time soon. Keep coping.

                          • +2

                            @ihfree: That's what they said in the USA. I'm coping - here for the looong game.

                            • -1

                              @WrightRightWriteRite: You'll be looong dead and even then nothing will change. Fortunately, Australia is rejecting the culture wars so far and even then there's the swing away from religion. Our conservative party is pretty much dead.

                              The way it was over turned is not going to happen in Australia. Abortion is in our law, not based on precedence set in a court case.

                              If that fantasy helps you get through the day, well, more power to you.

                        • -1

                          @WrightRightWriteRite: You are pro women dying during pregnancy and birth, with raped kids being forced to go through horrific trauma.

                • +1

                  @WrightRightWriteRite: Have you thought about leaving this 'wildly morally bankrupt' country(76% of Australian's support access to abortion)?
                  There are plenty of countries, or states in the US you might prefer. For example, Texas.

                  • +2

                    @ihfree: No, here to change the law eventually. It'll happen in time. I have faith.

                    • +1

                      @WrightRightWriteRite: You can expect the swing away from religion to continue.
                      Source: ABS

                    • +1

                      @WrightRightWriteRite: Faith is the problem, evidence should be used for laws, not faith.

                      • @FabMan: Anti religion, pro abortion. I see the straight line. You're a hollow shell of a man. Get some spirituality in your life.

                        • +1

                          @WrightRightWriteRite: Not into following near 2,000 year old books that even those that do follow it can't agree on what it means. With so many seperate churches all disagreeing on what certain words means, killing each other for centuries in large numbers… doesn't seem like a reliable source.

                          God told everyone what to do, but waited until human society had been around for thousands of years. Made it so unclear that not everyone follows. Later sent down his son, or came down as the son, or didn't come down at all but contacted prophets (depending on which variation you believe) because it's earlier messages weren't clear. Then allows wars to happen fighting in its name and the slight variations of its messages. Seems like an incompetent being to me.

                          Evidence seems a lot more sensible to follow.

      • +2

        Australians in general are thoroughly brainwashed to be PRO what ever is the current thing is…Give Up Guns? Tick, Abortion? Tick, Ukraine? Tick, Socialism? Tick, Untested Vaccines? Tick…It's really a sad reflection of the lack of honest Journalism, authentic Teachers, and She'll be right Parenting.
        Anyone who aligns themselves with those screaming demons with mental health issues covering themselves in blood complaining they cannot kill their own children need a serious reality check. Abortions can still be performed when necessary for the health (mental or physical) of the mother as has always been the case or if your that into sleeping around and not using contraception you can travel to a Blue State where it will still be legal.
        The main thrust of this division is really being pushed by Planned Parenthood and their Big Pharma funders who will lose their cash cow (organ and stem cell harvesting) as they say "Follow The Money".
        America's population is in a negative decline thanks to Roe Vs Wade (which Roe admitted was lie to begin with). But the Blue States allowing abortion up to the time of birth is just sick. The Majority of you are corrupted immoral morons uncapable of any compassion and are just happy to be Followers of the Deep State because they tell you everything you want to hear.

        • -1

          You win the internet today, sir. Outstanding post.

        • -1

          Current thing is? Are you simple? Abortions have been required for an extremely long time and now the most populated Western nation is abandoning treatment for women because of ignorance and it seems like it is spreading.

          The world is part of what we belong too, just because you happily want to ignore it and shove your head in the sand doesn't mean other people have or want too. You complain about other people commenting on the world stage, then you say they can travel to different states. Why not shut your own mouth if you want others too? Typical hypocrisy.

          Got a problem with medicine? Easy solution, don't take any ever. Live with your herbal remedies please.

      • +2

        Nice presumption, and nice non sequitur.

        I didn't know woke people were allowed to employ sexist and orientation stereotypes!

        … Ohhh wait, it's okay when it's a very specific single set of demographics, riiight? Hypocrite.

        • Oh look, another snowflake.

          • +2

            @FabMan: Sick logical retort bro, really showing the righteousness of your cause and showing everyone the error of their ways.

            Let me try: oh look, another bleating sheep.

            • @Grazz989: Hahaha, I just saw you being a little child and pointed it out to you. It is a shame their isn't an intelligence test before accessing the Internet, as you'd still be shoving marbles up your nose.

              • +1

                @FabMan: Nice, you woke losers sure love hypocrisy!

                Here's a hot tip, genius - the word you should have used was 'there', not 'their'.

                But I agree with the concept of the test, because clearly you're the one who would be excluded based on having childish intellect (and general worldview, no doubt).

                • @Grazz989: I was originally trying to highlight how petty you are, with extending 'riiight' and attacking the person not the argument, give a little taste of your own medicine. You go with your buzz words like 'sheep' and 'woke' because you want to move the debate away from the actual argument. I saw a childish message, so I joined you and that wasn't a good thing to do.

                  Why not try honesty, you are a straight man, you do want to control a woman's body, and probably women don't want to be around you. I think it is incredibly sad that people here failed biology classes and want to control a woman's body based on being willingly ignorant.

                  Misspelling words happens, it'll happen again, especially on smart phones. Your point was right and I was wrong about the intelligence test thing, it isn't intelligence you are lacking.

                  • +1

                    @FabMan: Petty? I was using sarcasm to highlight pure, sheer hypocrisy. I attacked the argument directly by pointing out the flaws - even citing a formal fallacy!

                    Would you say pointing out making sexist, orientation-based assumptions or stereotypes is petty? I just know you wouldn't ever, ever complain if one of your friends used the same language or rhetoric against someone making the exact same comment about a different demographic. You 'progressive' types would roast someone alive if they dared to say "Shock horror that [place] is mostly angry lesbians" - But that's exactly what's occurred here, but with the discrimination pointed at a different demographic.

                    As for buzzwords, lmao you immediately used the word snowflake! I BEGAN the argument focusing on the issue - The hypocrisy of making sexist and orientation based derogatory comments, and even that the conclusion was a non sequitur. That issue was front and centre, then YOU decided to bring ad hominem with 'snowflake' and questioning my intelligence into the conversation.

                    Again, so insanely thick with the hypocrisy here. You didn't see a 'childish' message, you saw me point out rank hypocrisy (no discrimination! … Unless you're straight and male, apparently) and you didn't like that.

                    The rest of your comment is barely worth addressing because all you're doing is making wild presumptions about who I am, and bizarre ad hominem remarks presuming what women (who you've never met and know nothing about) want on their behalf. For the record, I actually, seriously, have a master's degree in science from an Australian university so don't presume to talk down to me about biology knowledge.

                    Cut your losses here. You're making yourself look like (ironically, given this was your assertion about me) a petty fool indeed.

                    • -1

                      @Grazz989: "woke people"
                      Actually yes, you did start the buzzwords and childish behaviour, that is why I joined in. I also said I shouln't have, so pay attention.

                      "Hypocrite"
                      How can you complain you didn't attack them? A liar is what you are.

                      Science degree… Computer Science was it?

                      I don't think women should dictate men's health, nor should white people dictate lives of Aboriginals without sufficient representation, and I don't think white people should feel guilt for a perceived privilege a non-white feels they should. Additionally, believing seperation of church and state I don't think churches should be required to marry those people their religion doesn't think should be married, such as gay couples. But it is men here arguing for what should happen to women's bodies, men like you.

                      If you had a lady friend, how do you think they would they feel about you arguing online about what they cannot do with their bodies?

                      • @FabMan: Slow reply because a power outage cut me off halfway through my reply and I couldn't be assed typing it up again for a while.

                        Mate, YOU were the one that took issue with buzzwords. I never said that I didn't use them, I merely said that you're the one with the problem with it, and yet you immediately used one anyway. I don't give a toss if you use 'buzzwords', other than if you complain about others using them too. That's called hypocrisy, duh.

                        I didn't 'attack' anyone. I pointed out that being discriminatory against people of a certain gender and sexual orientation is wrong, but if they're male, straight, and apparently white (judging by the rest of your comment) you find that okay? Again, disgusting and hypocritical. Typical of 'progressives' like you.

                        I'm not arguing about what should happen with anyone's bodies - Take another look at my comments. I haven't mentioned abortions ONCE, but you make presumptions about me and my stance? … Wow. That's a bit desperate. For the record, since you seem confused - I'll educate you on what the most common pro-life argument is (it's not necessarily my argument). In short, it's not about the body of the woman but about protecting life - the definition of which is probably the very crux of the disagreement. If you are human and a decent person, you'll agree that infanticide 5 minutes after birth is morally reprehensible. Well, I think most decent people would agree that the same act 5 minutes before birth is also equally reprehensible. Okay, so somewhere between conception and 5 minutes before birth, it goes from acceptable to horrific. I don't pretend to know where the line should be drawn, but pro-life people clearly base their line on different things to pro-choice people (e.g. religion, or non-religious morality of perceived murder vs e.g. freedom or convenience). But I didn't make a comment here to discuss abortion.

                        This may shock you, but I in fact do have such people in my life. Rather than go on the internet and pretend to speak on their behalf, I look them in the eye whenever the topic comes up, and speak politely but frankly. How else can you respect both yourself and the person you're talking to? Meanwhile when talking with others like right now, I only speak for myself rather than pretend to do so on their behalf, as if all women are somehow one monolithic bloc that all have the same opinion as you on pro-life vs pro-choice. As progressives would put it: How very problematic of you to generalise women and pretend to speak for them like this.

                        • @Grazz989: "How very problematic of you to generalise women and pretend to speak for them like this"

                          When did I? For someone getting upset about me claiming you are saying things you haven't, you are doing it yourself. Hypocrite.

                          Everything else is just you carrying on being petty, throwing out buzzwords in a means to be offensive, but the most offensive thing is realizing the time I've wasted on you. I'm over this and you.

      • +8

        Good question.
        No games - yet, but they are expanding and I suspect games will follow.
        They do offer movies now, though.

        • +1

          but pornhub has a cuckold section which you can watch for free

          • +2

            @gizmomelb: It seems you are quite the expert on Pornhub - although I'm sure you're more familiar with incel sites.

            • -1

              @Almost Banned: I've never heard of them - maybe it's a religious thing? Oh isn't that what the priests are supposed to do, when they're not being paedophiles?

              • +2

                @gizmomelb: While I think you understand the 'cel' part of it (your hand not counting and all), you clearly do not understand the 'in' part of the term - your personality (or lack thereof) doing the heavy lifting there.

  • +70

    Me scrolling the list of games:

    I'm pro choice, pro women's (re: human) rights, pro all of it…but goddamn, these games are (profanity) terrible.

    • +28

      Not interested in playing the masterpiece "Bro, is it gay to dock"?

    • +1

      some of them should be ok..
      maybe one out of 100

      • +1

        desktop goose is great, it's also free tho. Dunno about the others

    • -34

      Lol imagine being pro "human rights" and supporting abortion at the same time…

      • +37

        Imagine being pro birth and not giving a shit when kids get their heads blown up by an AR-15.

        • +7

          Imagine if we actually lived in Australia and the US.

        • +1

          So for those neg voted my comment, care to elaborate on your viewpoint?

        • -30

          A true American is both anti-infanticide and pro-firearm ownership. The vast majority of people who own firearms legally have never shot another person with them.

          "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence

          2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

          5th Amendment: "No person shall be … deprived of life… without due process of law…"

          14th Amendment "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life… without due process of law…"

          Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong.

          • +6

            @Thaal Sinestro: Correct. If anti-firearm Americans want to restrict the right to bear arms, then all they must simply do is repeal the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
            Likewise, if pro-infanticide Americans wish to unrestrict the practice of pre-birth infanticide - then according the latest legal judgement of the Supreme Court, all they must do is pass legislation in Congress to allow the practice. It really is that simple. All whining strikes one as much ado about nothing. Either do what is required to legally enact your will on society, or don't - and accept the current status quo.

          • +14

            @Thaal Sinestro: Can you at least quote your drivel correctly. The Second Amendment quotes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A single person shooting up a school or post office doesn't count unless there's 20 shooters.

          • +9

            @Thaal Sinestro: A true American is one that calls them selves "men of faith" upholder of "human rights" then proceed to bomb and displace millions around the world for their greed and benefit. proceed to claim killing half a million kids as "worth it".
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

          • +4

            @Thaal Sinestro: America: the slow train wreck

          • +6

            @Thaal Sinestro: I was really hoping Caped Baldy's request for elaboration would yield something interesting and thoughtful.. Nope, just confirms what we already knew. Also please don't conflate abortion with infanticide. You may be surprised to know they are two different things.

          • +8

            @Thaal Sinestro: I hope you don't get any cancer cells removed, you are murdering a collection of cells if you do.

        • Can you elaborate?

          • @Alx75: I've got a few comments in this thread. Which are you referring to?

            • -1

              @Caped Baldy: "Imagine being pro birth and not giving a shit when kids get their heads blown up by an AR-15."

              I don't see a connection.

              • +1

                @Alx75: Well it was in response to "Lol imagine being pro "human rights" and supporting abortion at the same time…"

                I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard when there's a lot of people in the US, mainly conservatives, that decry abortion as murder but turn a blind eye to kids getting murdered at school. Kids go to school to learn and develop, having to train them to dodge bullets is sorrowful. Sad to see the mentality spread to Australia. Even Ireland a largely Roman Catholic country has legalised abortion.

                I didn't neg you btw.

                • +2

                  @Caped Baldy: Around 40% of adult Americans own a gun. Not including police, military, or any kind of other profession that requires carrying a gun.

                  Gun ownership is predominantly linked to being “conservative” (because progressive/woke/liberal folks hate guns, don't own guns and want to ban them, right?) so you’re basically saying that 133,000,000 people turn a blind eye and don’t give a f when a child gets shot in school? A lot of those shootings happen in “heavily armed” states, so the chances are those (shot) kids parents own guns themselves. I still don’t get your analogy.

                  BTW China has a similar problem, but there they use knives, clevers and hammers. It's not the gun, it's the psycho pulling the trigger.

                  • +1

                    @Alx75: Yeah, that old chestnut. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's crazy people blah blah.
                    But the - frankly stupid - suggestion is that guns are no more dangerous than knives/hammers/chopsticks/whatever.
                    No, guns multiply the harm vs non-firearms - that is their purpose - and that's the problem.
                    Happy to change my mind when you show me your Chinese knife massacre with 19 fatalaties.

                    • @Roddi: You saying “blah blah” is not really proving me wrong that it’s the “crazy people” that kill using guns, knives, cars… not those objects having a mind of their own and going on a killing spree. Is the gun more lethal than a knife? Yes, it sure is, but it’s still the crazy person that takes someone's life by pulling the trigger.

                  • @Alx75: Because knives have a trigger? Firearms and knives are tools but when you have "assault" rifles with 30 round magazines in the hands of people that have mental instability it's a recipe of disaster. It's a lot easier to stop a guy with a knife than someone that kill you 200m away.

                    you’re basically saying that 133,000,000 people turn a blind eye and don’t give a f when a child gets shot in school?

                    It sure looks that way. Mainly because enough politicians get kickbacks from weapons suppliers and the lobbyists having too much power.

                    A lot of those shootings happen in “heavily armed” states, so the chances are those (shot) kids parents own guns themselves.

                    I don't get this analogy. So the parents will shoot their own kids or the kids should bring guns to school for protection?

                    Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook massacre occurred, had 36% democrat and 20% republican votes at a recent election. So being a "liberal" state doesn't do too much when the legislation at a federal level is outdated and influenced by money.

                    • +2

                      @Caped Baldy: I’m glad we agree it’s the “mental instability” that's the main reason for those shootings. Guns don't fire themselves.

                      It's a lot easier to stop a guy with a knife than someone that kill you 200m away.

                      It's a lot easier to stop a guy on foot, than a guy in a car (like we had in Melbourne). Yet we don't ban cars.

                      I don't get this analogy. So the parents will shoot their own kids or the kids should bring guns to school for protection?

                      Meaning I'm pretty sure they do give a f if their child is shot or any other child in their town/state/country is shot in spite of you suggesting that 130 million people don't give an f and are heartless cold cun*s that turn a blind eye, just because they own and want to keep their gun.

                      • -1

                        @Alx75:

                        It's a lot easier to stop a guy on foot, than a guy in a car (like we had in Melbourne). Yet we don't ban cars.

                        I don't need a gun to get to work.

                        I never came up with this magical 130 million number but that said, there is a decent number that are very vocal and have enough sway (see Karens and NIMBYs). Fact is, that the majority of Americans support firearm restrictions in some form.

                        https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

        • Imagine being pro birth and not giving a shit when kids get their heads blown up by an AR-15.

          Which deaths should be of more concern, deaths caused by abortion or by firearms?

          • +1

            @m0usju1c3: I'd say firearms since it is the MUCH greater number and is 100% preventable.

          • +1

            @m0usju1c3: Firearms. The cost to communities is much higher.

            • @ihfree: Since cost is priority, should we mandate that close relatives to all people on life support, in comas or are practically vegetables, ought to have the choice to kill those people off (harmoniously if you will)?

              The main point I'm getting at is, how exactly have you arrived at this conclusion?

              • +2

                @m0usju1c3: Firstly, they're two separate issues. It's a weird question to ask. It is a mistake to compare issues so I am only offering my opinion here.

                As an Australian issue, it's largely irrelevant as abortion is legal and Australia has strict gun laws.

                I think it partially comes down to the question of what a person is. If you think of a person as the sum of their experiences, relationships and memories. Taking a school shooting, for example, the loss would be greater for a community.

                Plus, you save children who die or are injured by firearms.

                With firearms, you prevent lives lost.

                Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just means that people:

                • go interstate
                • resort to unsafe abortions which carry a significantly higher risk
                • health issues as a result of birth

                Since cost is priority, should we mandate that close relatives to all people on life support, in comas or are practically vegetables, ought to have the choice to kill those people off (harmoniously if you will)?

                What are you even talking about? cost a priority? to who? You already have this option in Australia. You also have the option of placing people in care.

                • @ihfree:

                  so I am only offering my opinion here.

                  Should the matter of sanctioning life or death be based upon an opinion? Is this opinion based from a faith/religion, are you making a claim to absolute, universal truth when you think this way or could you be wrong?

                  What are you even talking about? cost a priority? to who? You already have this option in Australia. You also have the option of placing people in care.

                  In your answer to my question above, you mentioned "The cost to communities is much higher", meaning that you've chosen between abortion and death by firearms by prioritising the least financial costs between the two types of deaths, is this not the point you were making? So I am saying, what if we were to mandate the freedom for those with close relatives who's lives have been maimed, who are pretty much vegetables lying in bed, completely reliant on someone else to do everything for them, to have the choice to terminate their lives? Do you agree/disagree with this?

                  • @m0usju1c3: It's an opinion. As I've stated, I don't really like comparing issues in this manner.

                    In theory, we live in a secular state. Decisions shouldn't be made based on some random's interpretation of a fictional book from another time.

                    financial costs

                    Ohhh, I meant emotional cost, not financial cost.

                    • -2

                      @ihfree:

                      It's an opinion. As I've stated, I don't really like comparing issues in this manner.

                      Yes you've already said that it's just an opinion, yet you are arguing in an imperative manner as if you are absolutely correct in this matter regarding abortion. You haven't answered my initial question in my previous post.

                      In theory, we live in a secular state. Decisions shouldn't be made based on some random's interpretation of a fictional book from another time.

                      But they can be based on arbitrary opinion? What should decisions be ultimately based upon?

                      Ohhh, I meant emotional cost, not financial cost.

                      Fair enough.

                      • +1

                        @m0usju1c3: I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve with this. My opinion and beliefs translate to how I vote which in turn translates to one version of morality being legislated. Remember that 76% of Australians support for access to abortion and No religion is growing in Australia. That's how our system of government works. It's not perfect, but it is one of the better systems of government.

                        Needless to say, legality doesn't always mean moral/ethical. Religious beliefs should not be legislated regardless or the percentage of the population. Those who are religious often have their thinking limited by religion and only think in terms of getting to the conclusion presented by their religion. If you're only acting in a certain way because of a book, you're probably a bad person anyway.

                        There are many ways to look at abortion - women's rights, salty incels dictating control over women's bodies, pushing responsibility to women, religious wackjobs with their interpretations of fantasy books, those same wackjobs pushing their beliefs onto others, when development of cognition occurs, treatment of children, lack of social support, risk to women's health, quality of life for women or children, avoiding abuse, interpretation/misuse of laws, unsafe abortions that will occur anyway.

                        Some of those things could be fixed in ways that reduce the rate of abortion, but none of them involve religion. Science can fix health issues, sex education and social policy to lift people from poverty can reduce the need for abortions.

                        When you look at many who oppose it, they often have low education levels, strong indication of influence by some right wing/wacko news source, incel, a dislike of women, MRA movements, religious, believers of supply-side Jesus. The arguments they present are largely based on outrage porn, cherry picked cases, things that don't happen, etc. It's also funny how little care these people have for children and women after the child is born. The hypocrisy is also strong in these people as they often want small government but their beliefs made law. Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

                        When I weigh this everything up, I think I have the right belief and Australia has the right law.

                        • -3

                          @ihfree:

                          I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve with this.

                          It's simple, I'm trying to understand how exactly you are making absolute truth claims to morality, reason and logic. You've obviously come to a conclusion on the matter, so you're either going back to an ultimate standard to determine what you believe, or everything you're proposing is just opinion and arbitrary, which it would seem in your case is true and therefore how can you ever be absolutely sure if you're ever correct?

                          No religion is growing in Australia(abs.gov.au).

                          I followed that link and I'll just mention that it appears all other religions are indeed increasing as the data shows. Christianity has certainly plummeted if you look at the numbers, but considering by and large Western civilisation was built upon Judeo-Christian principles, you are bound to have scores of nominal "Christians", where the closest thing Christian about them is the word on their birth certificate.

                          Religious beliefs should not be legislated regardless or the percentage of the population. Those who are religious often have their thinking limited by religion and only think in terms of getting to the conclusion presented by their religion. If you're only acting in a certain way because of a book, you're probably a bad person anyway.

                          According to your worldview, what should be the absolutely correct beliefs which should be legislated? You've submitted in this discussion that all you have is just thoughts and opinions. On the one hand you're making a positive affirmation of your thoughts and opinion, but negating all religion because they're beliefs differ to your thoughts and opinions. According to what standard or source of truth are you distinguishing these apart?

                          When I weigh this everything up, I think I have the right belief and Australia has the right law.

                          This is my point, your standard is simply what you've evaluated around you which are other fallible human beings such as ourselves. This is why the best you can do is simply say "I think" or "my opinion", because in an atheistic, materialistic/naturalistic worldview, there is no absolutes of anything, no ultimate standard of anything, all you have is matter in motion and that would even vary wildly depending who you talk to, most of the time is relativism.

                          • @m0usju1c3: And that's why there's no point arguing with you. Everything leads back to "God." Well, not exactly "God" - an interpretation of god by a fallible man.

                            Somewhat ironically, "God" is actually man's creation and therefore just as fallible as man.

                            Life isn't full of absolutes. Thanks for the wall of text.

                            • @ihfree:

                              And that's why there's no point arguing with you. Everything leads back to "God." Well, not exactly "God" - an interpretation of god by a fallible man.

                              So you're going to attack my worldview and beliefs, instead of defending your own?

                              Somewhat ironically, "God" is actually man's creation and therefore just as fallible as man.

                              But on the other hand…

                              Life isn't full of absolutes.

                              So that makes your first statement about God possibly true then? Seeing as how you've affirmed that there are no absolutes?

                              • @m0usju1c3: Science is about creating a body of evidence.

                                Religion is belief with no evidence. How's that teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars?

                  • @m0usju1c3: Interesting that you'd assume I meant financial cost. Follower of supply side Jesus?

Login or Join to leave a comment