Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Euodiachloris: It's exactly and completely equivalent, and I will back that statement until the day I die.
Yes, this. And furthermore, you do not have to be a misogynist or a blind religious fanatic to believe that assumption.
I saw, and I agree.
edited 26th Oct '12 8:48:27 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><@grizzly: And I dont rationalize the unborn as Non-persons. I rationalize that the evidence says the best way to protect the unborn is to not outlaw abortion, teach people how to use contraception properly, and not make having a baby an insane expense.
Rationally speaking,. I'd agree with Pro-Life if they werent so goddamned selfish and obstinate about realizing the best way to save babies is to care about the mother's welfare, because If having a baby isnt a huge strain mentally and financially, abortion looks less appealing.
Instead they seem so goddamn concentrated on outlawing abortion and deflecting criticism via running back to their fervent belief in "fuck facts I have jesus" that they come off as delusional and self-destroying.
edited 26th Oct '12 8:46:11 AM by Midgetsnowman
And as I said, if you really saw the unborn as people, I hope you would not be OK with a policy that made it legal to kill them, even if that policy would lead to less of them being killed in the long run, just as I hope you would not be OK with a policy permitting violence against any other group of people for socially expedient purposes.
<><@EG: People die all the time, both before and after birth. A third of pregnancies miscarry even under ideal circumstances. In countries without pre- and post-natal care, large numbers of babies die after being born, often taking their mothers with them. War and genocide slaughter millions each year, as does starvation.
To fixate on one thing: abortion, and call it evil and resist it with all your might, despite the presence of these other things and in the face of evidence telling you that the best way to prevent abortions is to permit them in combination with education, contraception, and medical care, strikes me of willful blindness. I cannot respect your views when they demonstrably lead to greater suffering than you seek to prevent.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"At which point we become entrenched in extended arguments about conundrums of philosophy.
That said, Edwards Grizzly, why the opposition to contraception?
Edit: Ninja'd. That said, i gues it's part of those conundrums of philosophy that asks, is an unborn human life worth more than, say, a child at high risk of dying from diarrhea in a third-world country?
edited 26th Oct '12 8:51:26 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
![]()
![]()
well,. You'd be hoping in vain then. I operate rationally.
My view is as so.
1: aborting babies is tragic.
2: Contraception and affordable prenatal-postnatal care makes having a baby far easier and less destructive to a woman's quality of life, along with drastically lowering the abortion rate
3: outlawing abortion doesnt work, and just increases trhe death rate because then women are forced to get coathanger abortions in bak alleys like a third world country, it doesnt actually stop all abortions evur.
4: therefore we should fund the fuck out of 2 if we want to reduce abortions, and therefore, anyone who advocates 3 over 2 is either ignorant, willfully blind, or doesnt really care about women and babies, they just delude themselves into it. In short. My morals care more about results in achieving my goals than standing on a mountaintop insisting I'm incorruptibly pure while everyone ignores my goals.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:00:06 AM by Midgetsnowman
It's best to get 85% of what you want, than get 0% by insisting 100% of what you want.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82912.html?hp=t1
While we're on abortion, apparently Obama (and the Democratic Party as a group) thrown himself as all in for abortion rights for women.
@Fighteer: I've given you no reason to believe that I don't care about or am unaware of those other issues. However, they have no bearing on whether abortion is ok.
Some drugs commonly referred to as "contraceptives" actually induce abortions at very early stages of pregnancy, and are thus viewed the same as any other abortions. I'm not aware of any serious conservatives who support banning the other forms. I certainly do not support doing so myself.
No, it isn't. But one is a tragedy that we attempt with limited success to prevent, while the other is an act of violence we actively support.
If someone told me that unless I murdered an innocent child they would murder 3 innocent children, I do not think I would do it. I would put everything on stopping them and saving all four, even if my chances of doing so were slim.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:05:35 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Abstinence-only sex education was a serious thing proposed by the George W. Bush administration, if I recall correctly, and supported by lots of conservative Christian organizations.
Legality does not equate to endorsement.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:08:02 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
![]()
We don't "actively" support it. Thats what you dont seem to understand. I do NOT wheel women into clinics and force them to abort babies at gunpoint. I want REASONABLE goals set to HELP women not be FORCED to abort.
Why the hell is it so morally wrong to care about prenatal care and that a baby isnt a life ruining financial drain that will destroy both the baby and the woman's life?
When the hell did grandstanding over whether the child reaches the point of being born become more moral than ensuring the baby has a good life after he drops out of some woman's vajayjay?
You know why I don't like Pro-Lifers? because theyre so goddamned fixated on making sure the baby is born yet they dont seem to give the slightest shit about the baby's welfare the second its out of the woman.
And the pro-lifers I know in real life? They dont like contraceptives period, because "if god wants you to have a baby, how dare you subvert gods will"
edited 26th Oct '12 9:11:25 AM by Midgetsnowman
@EG: The tacit position of the Republican party is 100% opposition to abortion, insistence on abstinence-only sex education, and contraception only for those who can afford it. They seek to unravel social welfare and income support for poor people, which dramatically impacts quality of life for many young mothers and their babies.
All of these things are proven to increase the demand for abortions, not to mention condemning those babies who are born to starvation and neglect. Your stance is morally repugnant, however high-minded it may appear. You would deliberately kill more babies than you save in the name of a principle.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:13:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ midgetsnowman: Yeah, you do have a point: Why is it society's problem that unborn babies are being killed but not society's problem that born babies are suffering and dying?
The one explanation I can think of is that unborn babies are, short of natural miscarriages, guaranteed to be "taken care of" by someone (specifically the mother), while care for already-born babies are some sort of "choice" for the parents to make, and thus up to them and their responsibility and their fault if things don't go right.
What if society does not provide them the resources to properly care for the already-born babies? Well, it seems to be an assumption that society doesn't provide, but people (somehow) earn their own resources (out of thin air?). And that's why if people don't have resources, it's their own damn fault. Also why welfare is wrong, apparently.
@ Fighteer: Does the current Republican Party platform say anything about sex education and abstinence?
edited 26th Oct '12 9:13:51 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
As to the three things, they do help.
Education prevents one of the fastest ways for abortions to happen: Teen pregnancies. Kids at that age are hormonal, make terrible decisions based on transient biology, but will listen to reason and logic, such as "Oh crap, you mean if we do it, any time, we might have a kid!? D8. Let's get the freaking pills and condoms."
Contraceptives ties into the above, and lets women decide on their terms when they want children they want to love and will be able to nurture and care.
Also a woman will be less likely to abort, most likely, if there is a system in place that makes the pregnancy much easier, makes raising the child earlier on much easier.
Simple state of it is. You want far far less abortions? Then you should support an incredibly social safety net and educating adults on how sex and pregnancy works.
At this point, you're sort of "I want my cake and eat it", sorry to say.
![]()
This.
It pisses me off to no end that someone can stand up on a platform and 'affirm his commitment to Life" while also preaching about "anchor babies" and "welfare queens" and a million other reasons why welfare, WIC, Food Stamps, and government assistance is bad, even if those things would ensure that same previous unborn baby has a full belly at night.
This is why I don't like the pro-life movement. I can agree that un born children are children. I cant agree with a movement so fixated on saving unborn babies while they dont seem to give even the slightest damn about that child's welfare once its no longer a politically convenient weapon to use against liberals. It smacks too much of cynicism, hatred, and delusion.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:17:24 AM by Midgetsnowman
![]()
Lots of republicans have came out as strongly anti-abortion even in cases of rape, and the democratic party/obama has came out strongly for abortion rights. Thats what.
Why on earth a Vice President, someone with zero legislative or presidential power can alter your vote choice baffles me. Paul Ryan matters jack shit politically as VP.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:21:30 AM by Midgetsnowman
@EG: It must take quite an attachment to that one principle to ignore all the other terrible things the GOP stands for in this election.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Come to think of it...a thought about welfare and the social safety net...
I just posted this:
The assumption that society does not provide one's well-being but rather one is solely dependent on oneself for it...this assumption works in a very specific situation:
- low technology/education
- high level of resources available
Back then, no one knew how to do anything anyway, so there was little advantage to being part of an established society that could transfer much in the way of technology or education or social connections.
On the other hand, natural resources were very plentiful. Want to be a hunter? Gain the skills to be a hunter, and there's game everywhere for you to feed your family with and then bring some to market. Want to be a miner? Pick up a pick-axe and prepare for back-breaking but rewarding work because veins of valuable ores are everywhere. Want to be a farmer? There's land everywhere that no one's claimed; go claim some, pick out some crops to grow, and start digging and watering. And so forth. When it's like this, once you work hard, you're assured of success in whatever you do.
There's just one problem with this:
This isn't real life.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:23:51 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Also states defunding Planned Parenthood which has great natal programs and training, but gets gutted by Republicans because they offer abortions.
It's essentially being used by Democrats and liberals to frame the Republican party as extremely misogynistic and antiquated.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:23:18 AM by PotatoesRock
![]()
It also hgas to do with the strongholds of conservative thought tend to be the rural areas, where if you belong to a church, you generally do have a huge-ass safety net of willing grandmothers to bake you all the pies and casseroles you could ever need.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:23:40 AM by Midgetsnowman

To the pro-choice people around here:
Maybe some of you actually don't get it. What Edwards Grizzly is saying is that, based on the assumption that the fetus is in fact a human with rights, the ending of that life is a moral crime tantamount to manslaughter or murder.
I know that I greatly disagree with the assumption that this conclusion is based on. However, given that assumption, I see how the conclusion follows.
And it's because it's on the level of manslaughter/murder, that's why it's a so-to-speak big deal. And the "let some fetuses die to save others" thing becomes a dilemma along the lines of the "flip the switch to kill one person instead of five people" dilemma.
@ Edwards Grizzly: Does this sound right?
edited 26th Oct '12 8:41:20 AM by GlennMagusHarvey