In my opinion the difference is; The fetus in utero did nothing wrong to deserve to be terminated. The decision to terminate is being made by someone else. Which is why so many people fight for the right of the unborn. However; the man (or woman) made the decision to commit a crime that warranted the death penalty, like take another human beings life. So the decision to be put to death was theirs and theirs alone. It’s easy to say you’re pro-choice, but until you’re the one making the choice, it’s difficult to understand. Trust me, when someone tells you you’re pregnant, you realize you have another life inside of you and know your life will be forever changed no matter what choice you make. I was 17, pregnant and on my own when I had to make that choice.
For me, I know I made the right choice.
I'm sure neither of us are inclined to do so. I don't follow you and you don't follow me. That's not my point. I don't care if people mute me, that's fine. I care that people can remove my ability to talk to others. That, to me, is a problem. No one should have the ability to stop me from talking to someone else. Sure, I could go start another post. But that's a band-aid, not a solution. I'm much more in favor of the several proposals of "mute as comment ignore" where the muter simply doesn't see the comment anymore, but doesn't remove that person's ability to communicate and have discourse. As for your point on apologies, there's a reason you're not supposed to apologize in a vehicle accident. An apology is an admission of guilt. People shouldn't have to feel guilty about holding diverse opinions here. Hubski is a community centered around "thoughtful discussion," and jumping up and down on someone's ability to speak (once again, to others) defeats that. You used the phrase "upper hand," that itself incites conflict rather than discourse (and I'd argue, goes against your "reach out" suggestion). I don't have the inclination to talk to people who aren't willing to tolerate opinions they don't share, I come here for discussion and thoughtful debate on topics. Being silenced for having a differing opinion destroys what Hubski is.
OH man, building a D&D campaign is totally possible. It'd help if all the characters weren't Human though. You'd want to think about Elves, Dwarves, Halfings, etc - different innate skills - round out that par-tay! You could adapt it. Let's see our cast of characters.
thenewgreen is clearly a Bard with melee skills, race Human. Bards aren't typically great in combat though mk our god is a Deus Ex Machina waiting for the heroes to get in over their heads (no character sheet, or NPC) insomniasexx i'm going to say is half-elf, maybe a Ranger or (less likely IMO) Rogue ButterflyEffect has gotta be some kind of magical artifact. OftenBen is clearly a brawler, human or half-orc. he's gonna be your tank. As for building a DnD campaign honestly really as DM you're mostly responsible for plot & setting. So unfortunately while we have these cool characters and archetypes it would be up to your players to pick and/or build them, though you could push your players certain ways in order to make a well-rounded team. For the D&D campaign it would not be hard since 8bit has done a lot of the work - you just steal his setting and the conflicts that arise. You already know, for instance, something about how Hubskina is laid out, so you don't have to make it up on your own. The problem is that eventually storylines will diverge because they have to diverge and at that point you're making things up for yourself. The work of running a campaign is about keeping the NPCs and the villains going accurately. At least that is my take on it. You have to build sheets for them, track their HP, whatever...that is where the legwork comes in as I perceive it.
Is this by chance the card? 
Dude, I think I broke this game or something. It won't let me do anything except masturbate. Games should not parallel real life too closely.