I guess we should ask first, a simpler question (or rather more focused one) to get the brain buzzing:

Who should have the right to vote, is voting a right? Is it inherited, granted? By whom? Is the right to vote and influence politics make the person with such a right sovereign? Or is voting simply a privilage?

Starting: I believe voting is an inherited right of the native, as this is their home and their civilization they are the only ones with a right to control its destiny as this burden has been passed down to them by rihght of birth. It is as such their duty to participate in any political process.

The right is as such not granted, it is inherent to the people, the native. However this changes for the immigrant or non native. But that is a question about granted vs inherited rights, or my concept of rights as such.

The native is as such sovereign because he may vote at any time, on what he so chooses, he steers and shares the duty of steering civiliation, even if it is voting for a representative. (Whos position should be always hanging on the edge, such that he may be at a moments notice empeached and replaced).

Voting can be a privilage to the non native granted by the native people, however it is my opinion that the non native do not get the right to vote, as their identity and loyalty is to something other than the ancestors of the native, he is inherently different in his identity and as such one will see his interests diverge from the native group, often in promotion of his own, whatever it may be, group. As such if Voting is to be a right, there must be grounds for exclusion to the right if a group is to be considered sovereign, if the native is to be sovereign the exclusion, the line drawn, must be who is descended and who bears the duty of their ancestors.

@Deleted User @Snakeisninja @campodin @JogaFlame @Summī Imperator, 呪い殿

so i don't have the right to vote in the us cause i'm white

in the US white is native, I mean americna indians are basically living in somewhat strange quas i ethnostates

but again I mean to also say that there are numbers also involved. Groups and their dynamics etc.

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 that is a ridiculous hypothetical. The answer already exists. Purely accidental deaths are not manslaughter.

She took a risk that could have been avoided, e.g. Not walking down stairs.

You are being needlessly obtuse

I just wanted an answer.

I got one.

I was just wondering if a woman took a risk that could be avoided, should she be charged?

Everything entails risk

Sitting still entails risk

You don't avoid risk, you mitigate the chances

I was just wondering if it were an absolute.

That's like saying, we shouldn't drive because chances are somebody could die

You're just avoiding the meaning of the question.

I answered your question the only way it should be answered

But I understand what you are saying.

And I'm not making it up to discredit.

Just to ask in what case would it not be the woman's fault for causing the death of her child?

By malicious intent or no.

Like could you charge a woman for drinking spruce tea and she has a miscarriage?

If it was determined she did it purposefully to kill the child, then she should be charged with murder

And if it's just recklessness without intent?

Not malicious, but just ignorant, or uninformed?

I know it's ridiculous

But humor me.

If she were, like, bungee jumping?

And knew she was pregnant.

How did all of you ignore my point about fetus rights haha

Sure, I was thinking more like, she wore high heels, and then walked down some cobble stairs

I was saying liberals see no problem with denying a fetus it's so called sacred human rights

I got it too

^ that is true

Which calls the whole idea of human rights into question

^

If we can ignore them sometimes when we feel like it then they don't seem all that important

Politics is show business for ugly people.

That's cause they believe they are lizards or fish or some such nonsense