A second bundle (yes there's two) supporting people in the USA following the overturning of Roe v. Wade is live on itch.io with the Worthy of Better, Stronger Together for Reproductive Rights bundle. The other is the Indie Bundle for Abortion Funds covered in a previous article.
June 24th, 2022 was a harrowing day for civil liberties. In the United States, basic human rights are being stripped away. It is a stark reminder that even after 50 years of legal protection, equality can be so easily lost. To say nothing of the dangerous precedent this decision sets for other civil rights protections, we believe that the right for a person to pursue safe and legal abortions is more than enough reason to stand up and take action. This decision does not only effect those capable of becoming pregnant. It is a determination of what rights we as a society choose to hold sacred. It is a question of who is deemed worthy of protecting. The fabric of our society is woven by every single member, to erode a single thread unravels us all. We must all take a stand and demand that our rights and bodily autonomy are federally recognized
This is a charity bundle as well with all proceeds being split between these two charities:
You can pay $10 (or more) to support it and gain access to 169 different items spread across games, tools and more including some gems like:
- The Away Team
- Aground
- Not Actually A DOS Game
- Sally Face
The bundle is up for the next 11 days.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyOf course the question isn't where "life" begins. There are millions and millions of live things in and on everyone's body. Bacteria, many of them beneficial, microscopic little bugs living in our skin, on and on. Indeed, there are some things which are independently mobile and have human DNA (certain white blood cells and glial cells, for instance). Nobody says we shouldn't be allowed to do them in if we want.
Oh, don't go splitting hairs now, you know what " where life begins" means. (see what I did there? Splitting 'hairs'? DNA? Get it? ....Bueller?)
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe question is where "personhood" begins
No. Life. Human Life.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyLooking at it the scientific way, it's not a person or capable of registering experiences until it has, at least, both a brain and some kind of thought-like activity in that brain.
Well, here.
Quoted from: https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain#anatomy
Around week 5, your baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop. Your baby’s brain is part of the central nervous system, which also houses the spinal cord. There are three key components of a baby’s brain to consider. These include:
Cerebrum: Thinking, remembering, and feeling occurs in this part of the brain.
Cerebellum: This part of the brain is responsible for motor control, which allows the baby to move their arms and legs, among other things.
Brain stem: Keeping the body alive is the primary role of the brain stem. This includes breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure.
/end quote
It looks like the argument about the point at which a baby is considered alive is after the 5 week mark, which is about 1 week after pregnancy symptoms develop (I think. I'll never have children so I don't pay attention to that).
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThey mean "When is there a soul?" To which my answer is "Never, there's no such thing", but to which the pre-20th-century Catholic doctrine's answer was "at the quickening"--which is to say, when you can feel it move.
Since the 20th century, specifically around 1942, Ultrasound technology began being used in medical diagnosis. I'd wager that it did not take long to be used in determining when a human life was growing inside a woman, and as the technology improved, earlier and earlier signs of human life could be detected. That's what helps determine when life begins in today's world. Deny those signs, deny science.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TherinSQuoting: dvdConservatives don't care about children (not just in the USA but everywhere), they just want control of womens bodies. It's also a ridiculous thing to consider the unborn thing a baby and totally disregard a pregnant womans needs or feelings over it. It's not a casual thing women do between lunch and dinner. Where it's legalised there are no abortion factories either, the women have to talk to their doctors and at least one psychologist.
That's about a B.S. argument if I ever heard one. Conservatives want to CONSERVE LIFE. The whole point is to PROTECT children, born and unborn. The only ones determined to show they do not care about children are the groups eager to murder them in the womb. Its big business for them and a political ploy, and dehumanizes the sanctity of life itself.
<s>
I've never been to an abortion before but I get the feeling that Planned Parenthood and the ilk have a conversation that goes like this:
Mother-to-be: I wanna get rid of my baby.
Nurse or doctor: Are you sure?
Mtb: Yes
NoD: Are you of sound mind?
Mtb: Yup
NoD: Ok hop up on the table.....
Maybe there is more concern in other countries, but that organization and the whole movement supporting them is determined to make killing babies akin to removing a wart. It's a life at conception, but each state gets to set its own murder laws now, so that should make some Liberal states very happy.
</s>
Quoting: dvdI think it's also quite simplistic view of freedom (political or otherwise) to say that whatever you will should happen. There are a lot of heinous things lots of people would vote for given the freedom.
Fortunately, heinous things are almost never voted into law because people KNOW they are heinous. Gimme some examples of this happening in recent history (preferably in the USA, since that's where this whole flap is happening).
Quoting: dvdOf course fascists around the globe make gains by disregarding the human sciences as useless, and give false natural explanations to stuff (like the old school racists). They also commonly target womens rights.
Fascists also blame everyone else for failures and rally the people with "Its THESE people that are the problem, they have to go!" That's how one of the most fascist governments in world history expanded its power in the late 1930s. Seems like there is alot of blame getting thrown around currently but most reasonable adults are wising up.
LOL what did i expect. Also conserving life drinking bleach smh.
Last edited by scaine on 6 July 2022 at 3:21 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
CyborgZeta Jul 6, 2022
I feel I should play devil's advocate and point out that states' rights, despite being frequently associated with Republicans, has been used by both parties. Just recently, the Democrats were all too eager to cite states' rights during the Trump presidency.
Heck, if one considers slavery to be the original argument for states' rights, then the Democrats were the first one to make that argument. It's easy to forget the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and later Jim Crow. It wasn't until LBJ that it started to become what it is now.
Anyway, I'll again state that I'm sympathetic to giving more autonomy to the states, when appropriate. After all, most decisions are best made at the local level, where the government is closer to the people it represents; particularly in a country as large as the US.
As pointed out though, this can create a patchwork of different laws and regulations; whether it has to do with abortion, the 2nd Amendment, or marijuana (marijuana is a good example of states taking the initiative). So what should be done federally, and what should be done by the states, is something I'm still figuring out myself.
Heck, if one considers slavery to be the original argument for states' rights, then the Democrats were the first one to make that argument. It's easy to forget the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and later Jim Crow. It wasn't until LBJ that it started to become what it is now.
Anyway, I'll again state that I'm sympathetic to giving more autonomy to the states, when appropriate. After all, most decisions are best made at the local level, where the government is closer to the people it represents; particularly in a country as large as the US.
As pointed out though, this can create a patchwork of different laws and regulations; whether it has to do with abortion, the 2nd Amendment, or marijuana (marijuana is a good example of states taking the initiative). So what should be done federally, and what should be done by the states, is something I'm still figuring out myself.
0 Likes
Quoting: TherinSThat's about a B.S. argument if I ever heard one. Conservatives want to CONSERVE LIFE. The whole point is to PROTECT children, born and unborn. The only ones determined to show they do not care about children are the groups eager to murder them in the womb. Its big business for them and a political ploy, and dehumanizes the sanctity of life itself.OK, now you shows your real thoughts...
Obligatory George Carlin on Abortion.
And by "protect children", what about that:
https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
Quoting: TherinSIsn't that what voting is all about? I'll argue again, Democracy is about voting for what you want and the majority gets the win. If the candidate you are voting for is not winning because of the platform they stand for, then that means they are not getting enough support for their (and by extention, your) opinion.
Quoting: TherinSDon't like what your state decides? Move or vote in people who reflect your beliefs.You know, I think "Democracy", its nowadays definition, is one of the biggest confusion and lie of the world.
Democracy is not voting for people to decide for you, especially not the key component at least, it's voting directly for the laws.
Voting for people should be the minority, only for rares cases, like it was in Athens.
Athens, for a short period of time, was a true democracy, but our governments today... no. Or a so, so downgraded version of it, at the point where it's a bit disgusting using the same word for two things that have nearly nothing in common.
Quoting: TherinSAbortion is murder, not birth control.
Quoting: TherinSIf having a baby will interfere with a person having a happy life then use birth control, not murder.*facepalm*
Quoting: TherinSYes! A thousand times yes! Killing a baby is murder. Thank you.You know, I don't think that was he meant, at all...
Quoting: TherinSOh, don't go splitting hairs now, you know what " where life begins" means. (see what I did there? Splitting 'hairs'? DNA? Get it? ....Bueller?)https://twitter.com/ConSelfOwns/status/1542220262287998977
0 Likes
Quoting: CyrilAnd by "protect children", what about that:
https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
You are validating or supporting several points and facts I've made so far in this thread.
1) The state decided to make abortions illegal, which is the states' right to decide.
2) This other state chose to continue the practice, which is the states' right to decide.
3) The citizens of each state now have the opportunity to change the law regarding this subject as they see fit by voting. (I seem to recall all these points being made previously).
Most important to the subject of the link is what to do about a pregnancy when it is the result of incest or rape. I've already made my thoughts on that in a previous post; perhaps you missed it.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CyrilYou know, I think "Democracy", its nowadays definition, is one of the biggest confusion and lie of the world.
Democracy is not voting for people to decide for you, especially not the key component at least, it's voting directly for the laws.
Voting for people should be the minority, only for rares cases, like it was in Athens.
Athens, for a short period of time, was a true democracy, but our governments today... no. Or a so, so downgraded version of it, at the point where it's a bit disgusting using the same word for two things that have nearly nothing in common.
Yes, that's the state we find ourselves in. There has been a big push to get rid of the electoral college in the USA such that every vote counts. The electoral College is intended to be a way to prevent states with enormous populations from completely negating several other states' votes. In this way, each state gets even representation.
A more accurate description of the USA would be to describe it as a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Abortion is murder, not birth control.
Quoting: TherinS
If having a baby will interfere with a person having a happy life then use birth control, not murder.
*facepalm*
You'd better explain the reason for that response. I've read it several times and the only thing I see is to use birth control to prevent pregnancy in the first place instead of murdering a growing baby.
Once that baby is there, the mother is responsible for two lives, not just hers.
Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Yes! A thousand times yes! Killing a baby is murder. Thank you.
You know, I don't think that was he meant, at all...
Much like when Purple referred to DNA cells. It was obvious I was not referring to that at all.
Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Oh, don't go splitting hairs now, you know what " where life begins" means. (see what I did there? Splitting 'hairs'? DNA? Get it? ....Bueller?)
https://twitter.com/ConSelfOwns/status/1542220262287998977
Notice how the text being argued against never said the cells are a human being? What the random doctor claimed about cancer cells in no way discredits the quoted tweet. Cells can be human without being A human, like there are pig or cow cancer cells but we don't consider them a pig or cow. The cells mentioned don't have the potential to become an autonomous being by themselves, just like human reproductive cells don't ... Until the reproductive cells are united. At that point, the growth of a new human life begins (they don't teach this in school anymore?) and that is the start of life in this context. The person posting the original tweet should have made that distinction clear, but common sense was ignored for the sake of a snappy comeback.
And with that, I'm ending my involvement in this thread. It's become clear that the opinion belonging to the commenters on this thread of at what point a life becomes valuable is separated by at least 5 weeks. The point of who has the right to decide when to end said life is adjacent to that. I've made my points and opinions known; feel free to discuss further.
Last edited by scaine on 6 July 2022 at 3:23 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
And just like that, another debate is aborted without consideration for its potential because someone didn't feel like carrying it on 
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: SalvatosAnd just like that, another debate is aborted without consideration for its potential because someone didn't feel like carrying it on
Debate?? This is just people spewing opinion. No-one is going to change minds on this stuff. Not only isn't this place to do it, I know that words won't change people's blinkered opinions on this stuff.
I mean, half the replies I started reading, thought "christ on a stick", skimmed the rest for personal attacks, then tried to forget. Everyone who has access to this site... they're all (myself included) so unbelievably privileged, we have no right to voice our opinions on this subject. We lack the context and (hopefully) life experience of being able to contribute to this "debate".
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TherinSWell, that would sound much more plausible if those same Conservatives didn't consistently oppose both birth control, sex education, and social programs that would help those children after they were born. There is a strong tendency for heavily conservative states to see higher abortion levels. Just more dangerous and probably later term because of the delays their policies lead to one way or another. Now with actual bans it will be the same only more so--abortions will be more dangerous, and some women will get put in jail for them--in a very caring way, no doubt--but they will still happen; in places where Conservatives are emboldened to double down on the stupid policies around sex education and contraception, they may happen even more. And in typical Conservative fashion, the wealthy will have ways to get it done discreetly and will never get charged; it's the poor women that will take it in the neck.Quoting: dvdConservatives don't care about children (not just in the USA but everywhere), they just want control of womens bodies. It's also a ridiculous thing to consider the unborn thing a baby and totally disregard a pregnant womans needs or feelings over it. It's not a casual thing women do between lunch and dinner. Where it's legalised there are no abortion factories either, the women have to talk to their doctors and at least one psychologist.
That's about a B.S. argument if I ever heard one. Conservatives want to CONSERVE LIFE. The whole point is to PROTECT children, born and unborn.
Higher child poverty levels too. Conservatives are notorious for "We totally care all about you as long as you're not born yet so you represent an excuse to control your mother's life. Once you're born, you're on your own sucker! But we'll make sure you have plenty of chances to get shot at school." That isn't caring about life.
If Conservatives wanted to conserve life, they would push for strong sex education and birth control. They want to punish people for sinning, so they can maintain social control. The common thread in Conservative thinking: Define a rigid "way people are supposed to be" and maintain a sense of order by punishing people who deviate from it, say by being non-Christian, or gay, or black, or a woman who has a reason to use contraception. And then they call this rigid social control "freedom", which I suppose it is if you're white and male and straight and not poor and Christian and boring.
6 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me