by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics


WA Delegate: The 🇺🇦Rewilding🇺🇦 of Ruinenlust (elected )

Founder: Errinundera

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

Most World Assembly Endorsements: 11th Most Influential: 16th Most Nations: 56th+29
Best Weather: 480th Most Valuable International Artwork: 490th Most Beautiful Environments: 588th Most Eco-Friendly Governments: 694th Nicest Citizens: 805th Most Compassionate Citizens: 848th Most Inclusive: 862nd Most Cultured: 944th Most Rebellious Youth: 1,129th Largest Welfare Programs: 1,188th Healthiest Citizens: 1,294th Smartest Citizens: 1,314th Highest Food Quality: 1,343rd Most Advanced Public Education: 1,352nd Most Extensive Public Healthcare: 1,370th Largest Black Market: 1,409th Most Advanced Public Transport: 1,480th Largest Governments: 1,667th Highest Foreign Aid Spending: 1,723rd Largest Publishing Industry: 1,740th Most Popular Tourist Destinations: 1,815th Highest Poor Incomes: 1,835th Most Devout: 1,892nd Largest Information Technology Sector: 1,965th Lowest Crime Rates: 2,029th Most Pacifist: 2,220th Most Secular: 2,268th Most Subsidized Industry: 2,339th Highest Average Incomes: 2,754th
World Factbook Entry

🌲 Forest welcomes all nations, especially those concerned with the environment.


Constitution | LinkDiscord | LinkForum | History | Polls | Statistics | Ambassadors

Quote of the Fortnight

"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

~ John Muir

🗳️ WA Nations, please consider endorsing our delegate Ruinenlust. Every endorsement gives Forest greater voting power in the WA.

🤝 Applying for an embassy? Please read our embassy policy first.

🌏 Want a place on our Regional Map? See here for details.

  1. 8

    Forest Directory

    MetaReference by Mozworld . 265 reads.

  2. 26

    Forest Regional Map

    MetaReference by The Most Serene Republicans . 1,272 reads.

  3. 7

    Forest's Research, Statistics & History Grove

    MetaReference by Garbelia . 207 reads.

  4. 45

    Constitution of Forest

    MetaReference by Mount Seymour . 3,632 reads.

  5. 27

    Seventh Annual Forest Photo Contest 2021: The Winners!

    BulletinNews by Mount Seymour . 257 reads.

  6. 38

    Errinundera: A Tribute to the Founder of Forest

    MetaReference by Kawastyselir . 384 reads.

  7. 4

    The Shelves of Forest

    MetaReference by Garbelia . 118 reads.

  8. 12

    Want to be an Ambassador?

    MetaGameplay by Verdant Haven . 809 reads.

  9. 68

    Forest Regional History

    MetaReference by Mozworld . 2,493 reads.

▼ 6 More

Embassies: Philosophy 115, Eladen, Hippy Haven, Yggdrasil, International Democratic Union, Antarctica, Winterfell, Antarctic Oasis, Texas, Canada, Union of Free Nations, Singapore, The Region That Has No Big Banks, Democratic Socialist Assembly, the Rejected Realms, The Bar on the corner of every region, and 18 others.the South Pacific, Oatland, Haiku, Portugal, 10000 Islands, Spiritus, Conch Kingdom, The North Pacific, The Leftist Assembly, Europe, Sonindia, Wintreath, Refugia, The Union of Democratic States, New West Indies, Libertarian Socialist Confederation, Philosophers, and A Liberal Haven.

Tags: Casual, Commended, Democratic, Eco-Friendly, Egalitarian, Enormous, Featured, Founderless, Issues Player, Map, Multi-Species, Offsite Chat, and 4 others.Pacifist, Regional Government, Social, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Extremely High

Forest contains 361 nations, the 56th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Healthiest Citizens in Forest

A measure of the general physical health of citizens in each nation.

As a region, Forest is ranked 1,294th in the world for Healthiest Citizens.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The United Mangrove Archipelago of RansiumDemocratic Socialists“Semper Virens”
2.The Colony of ChilledsvillePsychotic Dictatorship“Smile! It's not that bad!”
3.The Peoples Federation of The Campbell NationLibertarian Police State“Ne Obliviscaris”
4.The Taiga Folk of Northern WoodLiberal Democratic Socialists“Melodies like footprints found in snow”
5.The Eco-Republic of MozworldDemocratic Socialists“Dream not of today”
6.The Utopian People's Republic of Love and NatureDemocratic Socialists“We are part of nature, we are the vessels of love”
7.The Socialist Republic of KrusavichDemocratic Socialists“There will be no compromise”
8.The Tree State of CannibalandCivil Rights Lovefest“You are free, even to not be free”
9.The Heerlijke Opperheerschappij of Victoriaans NederlandsDemocratic Socialists“Wij werden uns aufrechterhalt jusqu' la fin des Zit !”
10.The Republic of NimrosDemocratic Socialists“Nec Temere, Nec Timide”
1234. . .3637»

Regional Happenings


Forest Regional Message Board

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

I think that jews will be allowed, other religions idk but my guess is those won't

Not a Forestian, but I would like to suggest that The Handmaid's Tale be added to the book list. Feels appropriate after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Brantanaria wrote:Not a Forestian, but I would like to suggest that The Handmaid's Tale be added to the book list. Feels appropriate after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

ooh, definitely a good choice. Margaret Atwood took inspiration for the book from the rise in religious movements, particularly in Iran in the 1970s, and the United States in the 70s and 80s.

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

shows the f*cked up state our country is in right now, can't believe that just because of the politcal views of an individual party, women's basic reproductive rights are stolen. at least some states will still allow abortions, and since most abortions are performed with two pills, many people could ask to have them inconspicuously mailed to them from those states.

I just endorsed everyone who ranked at least in the top 5% for eco-friendliness, weather, and environmental beauty (because those are my goals)
Damn that was painful!

On the amendment amendment - how about it may] be triggered by significant interest, and must be triggered by max(5. 5%). That avoids giving the governmentthe power to block an amendment by deciding there isn't sufficient interest.

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned.

Oh boy. I'd like to say my peace about this, but I think my opinions on abortion are probably the most controversial ones I hold, so to explain what my issue with this is, I'm going to have to do quite a bit of talking. I'll spoiler it and then tl:dr at the end, so hopefully it won't be too egrigous.

Right. So I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life. That is straight up contradictory, so I'd like to broaden the pro-choice definition to be the right to choose wether or not to be a parent or even to give birth, rather than just the choice to get an abortion. I'll touch on it in a bit, but I feel like this makes it no longer contradictory. I've done a lot of thinking about this, because being pro-life sticks out like a sore thumb next to all of my other political beliefs.

I'd like to first give my reasoning for being pro-life, which I think is also very important. In the past, I've written about how I think that what makes someone human is the potential for self-awareness, because I believe self-awareness to be uniquely human, but if you were to just say self-awareness, that excludes toddlers, people in comas, and a few other groups that I think should still be considered humans, otherwise some pretty awful stuff can no longer be excluded on any argument of humanity. I'd rather avoid that entirely. However, this definition also includes fetuses. As such, I believe it to be an extension of my position against murder to be against abortion.

I'd also like to acknowledge that this point, even though it is backed through an objective line of reason, it's still a subjective opinion, it's just what I feel like is the most correct. I could also argue that under this definition, any gamete is a human because it can reproduce to reach this standard, or if I wanted to get really abstract, that individual carbon-based molecules have the potential for self awareness if they are used to produce said gametes. I don't, because I think that that's a stupid argument to make, but I digress. The same goes for the other side. The best I can think of is that because the fetus is both attached to another entity and incapable of self-awareness, it is not a seperate being yet, though I'm not comfortable at drawing the line at the detachment of the umbilical cord. Regardless, if I wanted to, I have no doubt that I could tweak my definition of a human to exclude a fetus. It'd just be a betrayel of my intuitive and learned beliefs, which are still subjective, but real regardless.

Despite my beliefs about what defines a human, I still consider myself pro-choice for one simple reason: No one wants to get an abortion, it's just the best avaliable remedy to a situation. If someone goes out of their way to get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion, that's kinda weird and a bit psycopathic in my opinion, but I don't think that ever happens anyways. Because of this, I think the root issue isn't abortion itself, it's the conditions that lead people to get abortions. I'm absolutely in favour of women's (+trans and intersex, but I'm just going to use "women" for brevity) reproductive rights, but I'm still not in favor of abortion for the reasons above. I don't think these views conflict.

However, I have issues with the pro-life crowd, which I believe are more anti-choice than pro-life. Rather than engage with these issues intellectually, a lot of pro-life rhetoric is just emotionally manipulative. There's a lot "would you feel comfortable murdering [picture of third trimester fetus]" stuff, meaningless benchmarking (i.e. heartbeat at 8 weeks stuff, which I'm pretty sure isn't even true), and straight up shock photos. None of that is helpful, and it's just meant to create outrage. Then there's the outright vilifying of those who are pro-choice, especially if they've had an abortion. I fail to see how calling people murderers is going to win them over, especially because the decision to get an abortion is often a pretty hard decision to make. As I've said, no one wants to get an abortion, it's just preferable to the alternative.

The main reason I think it's more anti-choice than pro-life is that the same crowd puts very little importance into the lives of anyone that isn't a fetus. You can't just ban abortion and call it a day. A child born into a home (or lack thereof) incapable for caring for them is going to either be neglected (or outright abused), or thrown into the woefully undersupported fostercare system, which can, and will, mess a child up permanantly. Not to mention the strain that can be put on the parent(s). Raising a child is so expensive and time-consuming, and can literally ruin someone's life if they are not prepared for it. Financial distress, social stigma, and unsupportive parents are all pretty terrible things. How many stories are there of teens getting pregnant then getting disowned? And then after all of that, there's a lot of health issues that can befall both the parent and child.

I'm going to gatekeep here a bit, and say that anyone who is pro-life should also be concerned about these issues, and willing to remedy them. Free (or even just affordable) contraceptives and pre/post-natal care can remedy a lot of health issues. Comprehensive sex education and a crackdown on the social stigmas around sex would go a long way. Teaching consent and putting less pressure on boys to be romantically active as well. Hell, make raising a child a paid job, or better yet, impliment a universal basic income. Put more resources towards foster care, and give better incentives for adoption. Also let non-straight cisgender couples adopt, that'd be pretty great. If the circumstances require it, I'd even be in favor of state-funded artificial wombs, where a fetus can be surgically removed and grown in some kinda vat or something. When all of the factors leading people to get abortions are aleviated, then, and only then, can abortion be banned in my opinion. This is an attitude that is woefully lacking in pro-life circles. A lot of them seem more concerned about punishing people for daring to have sex.

Even if I think it's wrong, abortion is kinda necessary to allow for reproductive rights and autonomy, which I think is good. So instead of wrapping everything up in politics and vilifying the other side of the argument (admittedly, calling someone a murderer is definately worse than sexist, so pro-life has a lot more to work on), I'd rather work towards ensuring reproductive rights without abortion being necessary, which is a win-win (unless you want to punish people you don't like, but I'm fine with that stance losing). Really, I think this is a completely unnecessary conflict, and banning abortion will just lead to the worst possible outcome.

Making it illegal isn't going to stop abortions, it's just going to make safe ones harder to come by. Fetuses aren't exactly robust, but anything that can harm a fetus can harm an adult in excessive amounts. Not to mention the mess it will be if miscarriages start getting investigated as murders, that'd be super dystopian (especially since pro-lifers tend to support the death penelty for murder). But the people in power rarely ever care about their constituent's wellbeings above their own, so I doubt they will start now, and nothing to alleviate the circumstances will happen systemically. I'd be surprised if abortions were still allowed in some states a month from now, and I'd guess it's about 6 months until a lot of people start getting arrested. Either that, or a new Row v. Wade will happen, and we'll be back to square one, only more polarized and angry.

Hopefully my point is well substantiated here, and I don't sound like a flaming mysoginist or anything. Women deserve the right to choose, but that choice needs to be better integrated. Preventative care is better than prescriptive and all that.

Tl;dr: I don't think pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive and this is bad for both of them anyways. Please don't quote edit me into oblivion.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Fantastic idea for all you Americans: say that your religious denomination guarantees you the right to get an abortion, and voila! You're back to having your basic reproductive rights.

Didn't the Satanists unironically do that in Texas? This may actually be a valid solution if that went well for them.

^If you believe that people have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion for themselves, regardless of your own personal beliefs, then you are pro-choice. Regardless of the nitty-gritty, of if you yourself would get an abortion, or if you personally think it's wrong or not to get an abortion, it's still allowing for a choice, therefore pro-choice.

Pro-life was never really about being in favour of life, because if it was, then the same people who are 'pro-life' would also be in favour of better healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, daycare, vaccinations, sex education (abstinence only is not good sex education) and plenty of other services which can and do help new parents.

Who's ready for Gorsuch to use WV v. EPA to kill the entire administrative state in a 5-4?

I just want to move to Europe...

That's it. That's the post.

Forum View