US Politics Thread

[mrzz]

Women get pregnant, but they are impregnated by men.

What you want to say, bigot, is that people who can get pregnant are impregnated by people who can impregnate.

 

[britbox]

And some women choose life. Their own. IMO, that's a fair choice.

I feel that you missed part of my point here, which is an important one: the responsibility of men. It's not just "having a say," once the woman gets pregnant. That's far from what I'm most interested in knowing your opinion about. What about responsibility when they have sex? And, beyond just "having a say" when a women gets pregnant, what should the man do? Marry her? Pay for the abortion? Agree to take the child, care for it and pay for it if she can't, rather than have her abort it? If we're going to talk about a whole child, we kind of need to get into the weeds about what this father is going to do, beyond, "having a say."

Clearly, at this point, we are in agreement that no men who are anti-abortion ever have/have ever had sex with women they don't intend to raise a child with. Because that wouldn't square with any of the opinions above. Right?

Thanks.

Valid points, but here's a question for you... given that the man is equally responsible - can he choose an abortion for his partner, or refuse to pay if he didn't want the baby? Given your logic, I think it's a reasonable question. Dave Chappell joked about it...



Playing devil's advocate.

 

[Moxie]

Valid points, but here's a question for you... given that the man is equally responsible - can he choose an abortion for his partner, or refuse to pay if he didn't want the baby? Given your logic, I think it's a reasonable question. Dave Chappell joked about it...



Playing devil's advocate.

I love Dave Chapelle. He also said, in your clip, "If you have a dick, you should shut the f**k up" on the issue. Did you hear that part?

I don't think it counts as playing devil's advocate when you already have a position on the issue.

 

[britbox]

I love Dave Chapelle. He also said, in your clip, "If you have a dick, you should shut the f**k up" on the issue. Did you hear that part?

I don't think it counts as playing devil's advocate when you already have a position on the issue.

I heard that part and you know that wasn't what I was referring to or the question posed. I don't agree with abortions of convenience - that is true.

 

[Kieran]

I think an unfortunate part of the discussion about abortion is that we rarely discuss it in terms of what "life" is. Life itself is actually one of three things in life you're guaranteed. Once your mother conceives you and your life begins, that life is the first thing guaranteed, and that you have both a mother and a father are the other two. Nothing else is guaranteed, by law or science, because you may die before you're born.

Nowadays we talk about life itself in such random and obscure - and evasive and deceptive and dangerous - terms that it gets in the way of wondering whether life is actually worth all the trouble. Some people argue over when life begins, is it when the baby is born, is it when it's conscious, when it's viable, and some argue that a foetus isn't a human life, and some even that a foetus is only a cluster of cells, to which I generally respond by stating the obvious: so are f**king you, you idiot.

No, once you've been conceived, you're the waiting room for life outside the womb, but no matter what happens, the fact of your life is real, regardless of whether we make it out alive or we're killed inside, or we die inside through natural reasons. The life inside the womb is a human life at its earlier stage than we're all at now. I remember a friend made the wise point many moons ago that it's as alive as you and me, no matter how small it is.

When you think about the statistical odds of any of us being born, we can see how the odds are stacked tremendously against us. This alone makes life precious, and makes the killing of that life - through any means and at any stage, and for whatever reason - something we should take seriously. If religious people argue from a religious position for their pro-life position, then they ought to know they're wasting their time. Within religions themselves there are arguments made from a religious position that other religious people reject, because they see the obvious error, when viewed from their own religious perspective.

But secularism is a type of religion too. We see atheists and cultists on the left and cultists on the right of the political divide who revere their sacred cows and recite their sacred creeds religiously. And the result of all this means that to achieve their goals, they move the goalposts and so some will deny that life has any real meaning. Especially when it gets in the way of their own personal progress.

So the debate will continue to be at the mercy of the prevailing culture - which today in the west is far-left and predisposed to ignoring science and reason - which will try to define the terms and play down the negative sides of abortion. We live in maybe the most self-absorbed period of history, which has made us bold. The statistics @Moxie gives us above aren't a victory for restraint, if I'm reading it right: from all women who had abortions in 2020, 42% had already had a previous abortion. Over a quarter of them had had more than one.

That same year, 1 in 5 pregnancies ended in termination in America. It's impossible to mistake who the victims were in that statistic. It's ridiculous to think that in the wealthiest country in history, there was a dire necessity to kill 20% of its hopeful candidates for life outside the womb. It's a lie if anyone says that this is safe, legal and rare. Legal, maybe, but not safe for the poor occupant of the womb, and certainly not rare. We heard that same lie in Ireland during our abortion referendum in 2018. Safe, legal and rare. it's just electioneering. It means the same as when a politician knocks on your door during an election and promises full employment, lower taxes and world peace. We're the idiots if we think they're sincere.

Once it was reframed what life actually is and when it begins, and the rights of one persons body took total control over the rights of another, then the argument became moot. I doubt abstention is even taught in schools now. Any adults engaging is sex know that there's a chance a pregnancy might result. In that case, they can exercise their right to choose before they go too far.

 

[Moxie]

I heard that part and you know that wasn't what I was referring to or the question posed. I don't agree with abortions of convenience - that is true.

I acknowledge that it wasn't. "Abortion of convenience" sounds as much a judgement to me as "abortion as birth control." IMO, they're never convenient, or for "convenience." If a woman deems it necessary, that's her choice.

But since you don't agree with a certain number of circumstances under which an abortion should be, what, "allowed?" I guess?, then what is the responsibility of the man in this, and I did ask first. Also, let me ask then, do you think these abortions you disagree with should be illegal in the US (or in your country), or are you just stating your opinion?

 

[Kieran]

By the way, with regards to the responsibility of the man, I wholeheartedly agree with anyone who says the man ought to be held accountable and stand up responsibly for their part in the pregnancy. I think the UK have this correct: an unmarried father has to pay child support for the kid until the child turns 18. Why should anybody else? Why should the state, by using other people's taxes?

I personally know one woman who has 3 kids by 3 different men and they all live in a house paid for by the state. This is wrong. I know - in my extended family - a niece who has 3 kids and lives in similar luxury paid for by the state while the kids daddy pretends not to live there. And the dady has a job.

This is wrong.

Keeping it within US politics, America has the highest % of single parent families in the world. And of course we've seen the destruction of black families increase over the decades, with almost 70% of children being born into single parent families. As Denzel Washington among others have put it when it comes to the explosion of black crime, where was his father?

It's time to call time on deadbeat dads. Name them on the birth cert and let the state save itself some money by getting these losers to man up...

 

[britbox]

I acknowledge that it wasn't. "Abortion of convenience" sounds as much a judgement to me as "abortion as birth control." IMO, they're never convenient, or for "convenience." If a woman deems it necessary, that's her choice.

But since you don't agree with a certain number of circumstances under which an abortion should be, what, "allowed?" I guess?, then what is the responsibility of the man in this, and I did ask first. Also, let me ask then, do you think these abortions you disagree with should be illegal in the US (or in your country), or are you just stating your opinion?

Every opinion is a "judgement" of sorts... you can't get through life without making "judgements" as you call them.

One example of a "judgement" in this particular case, would be aborting a baby because the scan showed a boy was being born, when the mother wanted a girl.

Does the mother have that right? I'd presume (based on your commentary) that you think she should. I disagree. Selective sex, Designer babies...

The Australian Federal Parliament voted AGAINST outlawing this practice by a vote of 36-10.

So, if this kind of thing never happened, then why the need for a vote?

Abortion as birth control is a fairly common occurrence. I know it to be true. @Kieran and @Federberg have given you plenty of factual information. Feel free to ignore it.

Now there are other scenarios I have a problems with... if parents have a scan that says the baby is going to be seriously handicapped and have little life expectancy or the mother's life might be an issue... I honestly don't know. Never having been put in that position.

The man's responsibility is to care for, provide for, and defend his family. Not too dissimilar to the woman, but probably expressed in different ways. The Ying and Yang. I don't have much respect for absent fathers, but plenty of respect for those that aren't and play an important and active role in the development of their offspring.

 

[Fiero425]

Every opinion is a "judgement" of sorts... you can't get through life without making "judgements" as you call them.

One example of a "judgement" in this particular case, would be aborting a baby because the scan showed a boy was being born, when the mother wanted a girl.

Does the mother have that right? I'd presume (based on your commentary) that you think she should. I disagree. Selective sex, Designer babies...

The Australian Federal Parliament voted AGAINST outlawing this practice by a vote of 36-10.

So, if this kind of thing never happened, then why the need for a vote?

Abortion as birth control is a fairly common occurrence. I know it to be true. @Kieran and @Federberg have given you plenty of factual information. Feel free to ignore it.

Now there are other scenarios I have a problems with... if parents have a scan that says the baby is going to be seriously handicapped and have little life expectancy or the mother's life might be an issue... I honestly don't know. Never having been put in that position.

The man's responsibility is to care for, provide for, and defend his family. Not too dissimilar to the woman, but probably expressed in different ways. The Ying and Yang. I don't have much respect for absent fathers, but plenty of respect for those that aren't and play an important and active role in the development of their offspring.

Well I already mentioned I tore up my "feminist card" after Trump elected! I'm beginning to rethink everything I believed for all those years of giving women the "benefit of the doubt!" Now I'm seeing how misled I've been by listening to their catterwalling & victimhood portrayed on a daily basis! This issue of using abortion as birth control has really PO'd me! You have to be a special kind of stupid to allow that to happen even once, much less more than that! The US has some of the most educated women in the world, but it appears thru constant brainwashing of other women, common sense was thrown out decades ago! Being single-mothers is destroying the Black family unit! Not many of these women even consider marriage before getting pregnant as their moms encourage a back-up plan to get out instead of staying in relationships! When it comes to absent fathers, blame that on women too! Who chose these men? Sometimes they don't inform the guy, then others are vindictive and promise to never allow the father time w/ his offspring! The US is one fk'd up place where the stats show how destructive today's attitudes are when it comes to family! Divorce is expected even if lucky to find a spouse! These same single-minded idiots don't see how they're trashing their own futures and the lives of their kids! If being alone is so beneficial, why are so many of their kids mentally handicapped, in jail, or committing suicide? I'm disgusted beyond belief! Kevin Samuels is my new hero on You-Tube even though he died last year! Women couldn't stand his TRUTH, so they cheered his passing even though they're coming around to his way of thinking!

 

[mrzz]

I think an unfortunate part of the discussion about abortion is that we rarely discuss it in terms of what "life" is. Life itself is actually one of three things in life you're guaranteed. Once your mother conceives you and your life begins, that life is the first thing guaranteed, and that you have both a mother and a father are the other two. Nothing else is guaranteed, by law or science, because you may die before you're born.

Nowadays we talk about life itself in such random and obscure - and evasive and deceptive and dangerous - terms that it gets in the way of wondering whether life is actually worth all the trouble. Some people argue over when life begins, is it when the baby is born, is it when it's conscious, when it's viable, and some argue that a foetus isn't a human life, and some even that a foetus is only a cluster of cells, to which I generally respond by stating the obvious: so are f**king you, you idiot.

No, once you've been conceived, you're the waiting room for life outside the womb, but no matter what happens, the fact of your life is real, regardless of whether we make it out alive or we're killed inside, or we die inside through natural reasons. The life inside the womb is a human life at its earlier stage than we're all at now. I remember a friend made the wise point many moons ago that it's as alive as you and me, no matter how small it is.

When you think about the statistical odds of any of us being born, we can see how the odds are stacked tremendously against us. This alone makes life precious, and makes the killing of that life - through any means and at any stage, and for whatever reason - something we should take seriously. If religious people argue from a religious position for their pro-life position, then they ought to know they're wasting their time. Within religions themselves there are arguments made from a religious position that other religious people reject, because they see the obvious error, when viewed from their own religious perspective.

But secularism is a type of religion too. We see atheists and cultists on the left and cultists on the right of the political divide who revere their sacred cows and recite their sacred creeds religiously. And the result of all this means that to achieve their goals, they move the goalposts and so some will deny that life has any real meaning. Especially when it gets in the way of their own personal progress.

So the debate will continue to be at the mercy of the prevailing culture - which today in the west is far-left and predisposed to ignoring science and reason - which will try to define the terms and play down the negative sides of abortion. We live in maybe the most self-absorbed period of history, which has made us bold. The statistics @Moxie gives us above aren't a victory for restraint, if I'm reading it right: from all women who had abortions in 2020, 42% had already had a previous abortion. Over a quarter of them had had more than one.

That same year, 1 in 5 pregnancies ended in termination in America. It's impossible to mistake who the victims were in that statistic. It's ridiculous to think that in the wealthiest country in history, there was a dire necessity to kill 20% of its hopeful candidates for life outside the womb. It's a lie if anyone says that this is safe, legal and rare. Legal, maybe, but not safe for the poor occupant of the womb, and certainly not rare. We heard that same lie in Ireland during our abortion referendum in 2018. Safe, legal and rare. it's just electioneering. It means the same as when a politician knocks on your door during an election and promises full employment, lower taxes and world peace. We're the idiots if we think they're sincere.

Once it was reframed what life actually is and when it begins, and the rights of one persons body took total control over the rights of another, then the argument became moot. I doubt abstention is even taught in schools now. Any adults engaging is sex know that there's a chance a pregnancy might result. In that case, they can exercise their right to choose before they go too far.

Congratulations on a great post. I might disagree here and there, but it is a very inspired piece.

I will split a bit of hair in one particular bit later on, but congratulations once again.

 

[Moxie]

I personally know one woman who has 3 kids by 3 different men and they all live in a house paid for by the state. This is wrong.

I have a question about this: which part of the above sentence is that part you think is wrong, or are they both? You do say that the state shouldn't pay, so you think the second part is wrong, it seems. What about the first part? Do you think it's wrong that the woman has 3 children by 3 different men? But at least she didn't abort them. And if you don't think that part is wrong, why mention that her 3 children are by 3 different men. That seems, then, that you're just "slut-shaming" her. Human beings are going to have sex, and your position seems to be that abortions should only happen in the more extreme circumstances. A lot of women and men (more so, one guesses) have children with more than one partner, including within multiple marriages.

 

[Moxie]

This issue of using abortion as birth control has really PO'd me! You have to be a special kind of stupid to allow that to happen even once, much less more than that!

Plenty of women get pregnant on birth control. There is no infallible method, except for abstinence, and men have a roll in abstinence as a choice, and in birth control, too. As I mentioned above, they could always use a condom, as at least some effort at mitigating the chances of pregnancy. And if they don't want children, they can have a vasectomy. And there could be more research into male forms of birth control. We all well-know that you've turned against women for many reasons in the last while, but calling women "stupid" for getting pregnant when they don't want to be is wrong-headed and unreasonably judgmental. Women have a right to a healthy sex life, and they have a right to choose when and if to have children.

 

[Kieran]

I have a question about this: which part of the above sentence is that part you think is wrong, or are they both? You do say that the state shouldn't pay, so you think the second part is wrong, it seems. What about the first part? Do you think it's wrong that the woman has 3 children by 3 different men? But at least she didn't abort them. And if you don't think that part is wrong, why mention that her 3 children are by 3 different men. That seems, then, that you're just "slut-shaming" her. Human beings are going to have sex, and your position seems to be that abortions should only happen in the more extreme circumstances. A lot of women and men (more so, one guesses) have children with more than one partner, including within multiple marriages.

Yes, I think abortion should only happen in extreme cases, but I wasn’t slut shaming, that wasn’t the reason I was complaining. I was complaining that 3 different times she got pregnant through different men (which is her own business, I don’t mind that) but I do mind that the state gives her tax payers money for this. After one child she ought to have been told, ‘you know now how babies are made. Don’t come looking to us again for money, you and your partners are responsible for your children.’

I think in the UK the state gets the fathers name off the mother if she comes looking for a child allowance, and the state then pursues the father for the money. I think that’s reasonable. The pity is that there are men who just leave her to fend for herself..

 

[Kieran]

Women have a right to a healthy sex life, and they have a right to choose when and if to have children.

I don’t think anyone has ‘a right’ to a healthy sex life but the second part - are you saying that if they get pregnant but hasn’t planned to have a baby they have a right to choose to abort?

 

[Moxie]

Every opinion is a "judgement" of sorts... you can't get through life without making "judgements" as you call them.

One example of a "judgement" in this particular case, would be aborting a baby because the scan showed a boy was being born, when the mother wanted a girl.

Does the mother have that right? I'd presume (based on your commentary) that you think she should. I disagree. Selective sex, Designer babies...

The Australian Federal Parliament voted AGAINST outlawing this practice by a vote of 36-10.

So, if this kind of thing never happened, then why the need for a vote?

I do find it a bit sensationalistic to pull out examples that are less-common, esp. in our part of the world. Though, it was interesting to do a bit of research, and realize that there is some legislation on this, and attempts at legislation on this, even in the US. The practice does tend to come with immigrants from where it is more prevalent, i.e., Asia and East Asia.

Sex-selective abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Abortion as birth control is a fairly common occurrence. I know it to be true. @Kieran and @Federberg have given you plenty of factual information. Feel free to ignore it.

Just because they keep saying it, doesn't mean they have provided factual evidence. Remind me if I missed an actual statistic they provided? And I haven't ignored it. I copped to the fact that if they call having an abortion once you get pregnant "abortion as birth control," then I agree with that definition. I did find this study, and 51% of women in the US in 2014 reported using birth control in the month they became pregnant. Which means that a larger portion than I would have thought did not. I can concede this, as long as you all agree that a majority of women do you birth control, and it fails.

Reported contraceptive use in the month of becoming pregnant among U.S. abortion patients in 2000 and 2014

The objective was to determine whether types of contraceptive methods used by abortion patients in the month they became pregnant changed between 2000 and 2014.We used secondary data from the 2000 (n=10,015) and 2014 (8177) Abortion Patient Surveys. Patients ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now there are other scenarios I have a problems with... if parents have a scan that says the baby is going to be seriously handicapped and have little life expectancy or the mother's life might be an issue... I honestly don't know. Never having been put in that position.

Personally, I've never been in that position, either, but I can empathize with the agonizing decisions they have to make. I'm sure you would, too. Obviously, these are outlier situations, too. But they are part of the story, as is sex-selective abortion.

The man's responsibility is to care for, provide for, and defend his family.

Does this mean whatever unintended offspring?

Not too dissimilar to the woman, but probably expressed in different ways. The Ying and Yang. I don't have much respect for absent fathers, but plenty of respect for those that aren't and play an important and active role in the development of their offspring.

I don't see how it's at all dissimilar, but whatever.

You still don't say which of all this you would see as law, and how much is just your personal views. Obviously, you have no say in US law, but you brought it up on this thread. Would you wish that abortion be more limited in the US than it already is, to reflect your views? Would you like to see, as Kieran points out, more legislations, such as they have in the UK? to make biological fathers more financially responsible for their "by-blows?" I'm just curious as to how much of this you would see regulated in law, in the US.

 

[Kieran]

Just because they keep saying it, doesn't mean they have provided factual evidence. Remind me if I missed an actual statistic they provided? US.

The statistic of women finding it financially non-viable to have a baby at that time is proof that abortion was used as a retrospective contraception in those cases.

And the fact that 20% of pregnancies were aborted in America in 2020 is proof that it’s rampant…

 

[Moxie]

I don’t think anyone has ‘a right’ to a healthy sex life but the second part - are you saying that if they get pregnant but hasn’t planned to have a baby they have a right to choose to abort?

It's sad to me that you don't think people have a right to a healthy sex life. It is one of life's great pleasures, and was withheld from women in many ways for a long time, i.e, centuries. Part of women's liberation was The Pill, and the notion that they could, and should (I intend that word,) enjoy sex for its own sake, the way men have since forever. It is a great part of marital bliss and cohesion. A completely irresponsible approach to that is ill-advised, I think we can agree. You made the point above about the teaching of abstinence. I am for that, as long as it comes with the teaching of birth control. There is a movement for "abstinence only" education in schools, here in the US, which I think is too head-in-the-sand. The human inclination is to procreate, and so sex is a huge drive, and pleasure. However, I think kids can definitely start too young, and it has many ill-effects, not only getting pregnant before they are emotionally ready for children.

I'm surprised you asked me the second part of the above. I have said that I think that if "they" get pregnant and hadn't planned to have a baby, they have a right to abort. I've said "abortion on demand" in the first trimester. I think that's pretty clear.

 

[Kieran]

It's sad to me that you don't think people have a right to a healthy sex life.

It’s the words ‘a right to a healthy sex life.’ If it’s not on offer, how are they to claim this ‘right’? I’m all for people enjoying a good romp, I just wonder about the phrasing there.

I'm surprised you asked me the second part of the above. I have said that I think that if "they" get pregnant and hadn't planned to have a baby, they have a right to abort.

And yet you claim there’s little use of abortion as a contraceptive after the fact. You actually believe it’s okay - and I’m certain that many others do too, and have availed of it.

I've said "abortion on demand" in the first trimester. I think that's pretty clear.

Well you were clear but you didn’t answer my follow up question: why not abortion on demand a week after the first trimester? Or a day after? Or an hour?

 

[Moxie]

The statistic of women finding it financially non-viable to have a baby at that time is proof that abortion was used as a retrospective contraception in those cases.

And the fact that 20% of pregnancies were aborted in America in 2020 is proof that it’s rampant…

You're not reacting to statistics. You're assuming. Who has provided a statistic that the main reason for abortion is financial inability? The stats I have provided do say that more women in 2014 than in the previous study were low-income, so you might surmise that, but there are many reasons to have an abortion. That said, why is the inability to provide for a child NOT a good reason not to have it? A significant number of women who have abortions already have kids. They, and their families may already be struggling. You might suggest giving a child up for adoption rather than abort it, but there is significant mental stress in that choice.

Perhaps if the US system provided more support for low-income families, it wouldn't be such a problem, but the US is woeful in this.

 

[Moxie]

It’s the words ‘a right to a healthy sex life.’ If it’s not on offer, how are they to claim this ‘right’? I’m all for people enjoying a good romp, I just wonder about the phrasing there.

If you read my point about how women didn't have the same access to this, you might understand better.

And yet you claim there’s little use of abortion as a contraceptive after the fact. You actually believe it’s okay - and I’m certain that many others do too, and have availed of it.

Read my above to Britbox. I conceded something on that.

Well you were clear but you didn’t answer my follow up question: why not abortion on demand a week after the first trimester? Or a day after? Or an hour?

Must have missed the follow up question. There is no such thing as a "day after" or "hour after" the first trimester. It's rarely known the exact day of conception, so don't be a git. I mention the first trimester, because it's long been a benchmark, and I think it's reasonable. After that, I think there should be consultation with a doctor. Frankly, the US is adopting laws that may decide that, in many states. There are women that just don't even know they're pregnant until it's too late for a first trimester abortion. But look at the stats I've provided in the links. Post-first trimester abortions are rare.