I would argue that none of us on this board (for or against) have any real stake in the result. We're all males, and thus, we are debating on something that happens to women.

The Nebraska gov who said women who are raped should keep the baby is exactly the Conservative angle on things. In their own warped sense of reality, they think this is the right path because in their way two wrongs don't make a right. Yet they cut all the support networks that could prevent these issues in the first place. How does rape occur in our society? How does poverty occur in our society?

The fuck you I got mine is prevalent in the Conservative thought process and if a few women get raped (or incest), that's just collateral damage for being in a godless society.

I also think that abortion rights should only be decided on by those who are affected by it (i.e. women who can bare children).

I grew up in Catholic school and pro-life was the way. I knew a girl who after high school we met up and I found out she left college to be with a guy, moved to Colorado, was being beaten by him and got pregnant. She got an abortion. It changed my perspective.

The world is far more dangerous for women, especially in a conservative country.

I raised a daughter that wasn't mine. She was the product of an abusive marriage. I don't know if her mother contemplated abortion, but she was told to have the baby full term. I think there was resentment on this. My daughter has very little contact with her "mother", we (my wife and I) adopted her. She has mental health issues because of all of this. She once told me she wished she was aborted. She is in a much better place now with therapy and medicine. She has a 4.0 and a good outlook on life. I'm damn lucky to have her in mine.

The point is, if I wasn't there, where would she be right now?

I'll add, I don't like the idea of abortion but I understand why it is needed and I support the woman's right on this. I don't think abortion is abused or treated lightly by people that go through it. If it is, they have far more fucked up issues they're dealing with, and it's a good thing that fetus doesn't come to term.

I also don't think the aborted remember. Much like all of us before we were born, we were in a state of stasis. And once we die, we'll return to that.

I do think this is about control. It is to punish women who stray from the conservative ideals. They're thought is if you get pregnant, it's your cross to bear regardless of how you got pregnant. It's old draconian thinking for those who can't handle the idea of a woman having empowerment for themselves.

So for the people here that didn't like how Edward phrased his question, how would you have phrased it? What would make it more objective and less subjective?

I have one child who has a uterus. They have a girlfriend, who also has a uterus. My son may one day marry someone who may well have a uterus.

My stakes are not direct, but I think I do have an interest.

You really don't have any stakes unless you want to. The male can opt out, or not be involved at the woman's discretion.

You won't have any say over your son's gf uterus anymore than he would. Same for your daughter or daughter's gf.

Now if the new abortion laws go into affect, don't worry, you won't have a say in that either, the State will.

I'm not sure one can constructed, given the controversial context of the topic. Which was rather my point.

There is no doubt it is a trap question. Much like "do you favor allowing abortions in case of rape and incest " is for the Pro-Choice side. People largely are repulsed by the idea of having to give birth to a rapist child, just as they are large repulsed by the idea of terminating a pregnancy right before natural birth. From what I can tell, in reality this is a more nuanced debate then what the extremes really allow.
I did answer the question, though. I try to give forum members the benefit of the doubt unless it is clear they are being disingenuous.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

This is the problem, you can't really phrase your questions to fit everyone's ideal method of delivery. It's written form, which of course leaves far too much room for interpretation. Spending all your time trying to appease everyone's sensibilities is fruitless.

Honestly, if someone's interpretation of question stirs anger or negativity, it's probably best to either move on, or at least not make the response so personal, in terms of name calling/attacking the other person.

Hell, then we have just become like a good portion of society, which is well, I disagree with that guy, so fuck him. It's always been one of the things I like about FOFC. There will always be friction on divisive topics, but people here generally are able to be civil.

And for the record, while I don't always agree with Edward, I believe that in his heart he truly tries to take a centrist approach to most things and is genuinely interested in having productive conversations in a respectful manner.

I mean, a case study of what not to do is post 5027 of this thread:



We can give Edward the benefit of the doubt that his intention was not to trap, but this is exactly a case study of how you use a trap question to paint someone in a negative manner.

Lathum's response was clearly nuanced and caveated, but Edward ultimately chooses to categorize it as "yes". He doubles down by saying "there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong" which, given its place in context, implies that the statement is made in opposition to Lathum's position, which is factually incorrect as Lathum never said "abortion is never wrong".


If you want to try and have a constructive discussion about a topic as controversial and complex as abortion, you don't simplify other people's arguments. Or, don't be surprised when they call you out on it.

I'm not as emotionally vested in this issue as others so I also don't get what is so awful about the question. Any legal restrictions have to be fairly know by the public. So one's position could be: never allowed, allowed before some certain period of time, or always allowed if permitted by a licensed doctor. With the option for exceptions from any restriction based upon rape or known birth defects or mother's health or whatever else.

I'm pro- always legal, but, I don't think asking someone what they think the law should be is necessarily some kind of trick. It just seems that it's a hard question to ask or answer for some people, based on a lot of real and perceived baggage and bias going into the query. Buy someone totally anonymously asking that question to a stranger seems really normal.

The problem isn't so much the question, which FTR I find lazy. It is what those on the right tend to do with the response, which is bend it in to a GOTCHA!! which is exactly what Edward did.

How is it nuanced to stated abortion should always be allowed in cases of rape/incest. If I misread your comment, my apologies, but it seems like your equating that question to the once currently being discussed.

I am, yes. It is the "gotcha" question on the choice side. If you agree it should be allowed, then you can't claim all abortions are murder. If you disagree that it should be allowed, you are a monster.

The nuance is where most people are. People quote the "70% are in favor of legal abortions" but ignore the fact that most people believe abortions should be restricted in the second and third trimester. In other words, most people fall short in believing all abortions are murder, but also most people believe that abortions shouldn't be without restrictions.

I don't see the two as equal at all. In the question of rape/incest where is the nuance?

When you ask someone "should abortion be allowed up until birth?" there is an insane amount of nuance.


Now the answer to the former may cause the respondent to either come off as a hypocrite, or a monster, but IMO if you feel like someone should either be required to carry a baby conceived by rape/incest to full term you're a monster. Likewise, if you claim a woman should be forced to give birth to a baby the either isn't going to survive or is going to put the mother at risk you are equally a monster.

Ok, you don't, but it is.

Explain to me how one question that has zero nuance is equal to a question that has literally an endless amount of nuance?

Because I'm not talking about nuance. I'm talking about how the questions are used, and I am done talking about that.

The right- Even pregnancies derived from rape/incest are a gift from god, so the woman should have to endure 9 months of shame and reminders about her ordeal, just to deliver a child that she never wanted and oh! We think the father should have rights! Also the right. Every pregnancy is a gift from god, and if that means mom dies because it is ectopic, or dies in child birth because of major complications, or the baby is non viable and dies during or prior to birth the mother should have to endure it because gods will.


The left- Yeah, rape and incest are bad and abortion should be allowed in these cases. Also, if the pregnancy is never going to live, or the mom is at risk of dying we should abort and protect her.

It is almost as if the answers reveal the character of the respondents. I know which side I would like to be on.

It's depressing how many GOP voices today have decided that yes, actually the Jews are trying to replace white voters with minorities.

Lathum, I have no idea what you think I said, but your creation of strawmen would get ripped to shreds by someone who was anti-abortion.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The abortion issue has never been about abortion. For pro-choice, it's about women being able to control their own body. For anti-abortion, it's about being able to control women's bodies.

There are a number of ways that we can drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country. The anti-abortion crowd does not support them and actively fights against it. Pretty clear they don't really care about abortion.

Also remember that abortion became an issue in the early 20th century when Protestants were concerned about being replaced by non-Anglos. In the late 20th century, it was brought back because religious leaders who ran segregated schools wanted to maintain their tax-exempt status.

Abortion is just a battleground for completely different issues.

It's also a divisive issue that's supporting a group that has no voice, no expectations, and that you don't have to be held accountable to. It's easy for politicians to defend a fetus. If it really was about the fetus' rights then we would have to start talking tax credits and stimulus for pregnant women, we wouldn't be able to sentence pregnant women in crimes along with a host of other issues and questions that come up when you decide to give a fetus rights.

Many of the same states banning abortions or writing trigger bills for abortion are also discussing banning birth control. That says everything.

I agree with this.


I also agree with this.


Thanks.

Thanks, having a great time so far in Philippines. Hot & humid as heck.


It may be semantics but I do not consider myself "neutral" per se. Before I posed the question, I answered the question with my belief which I do believe is the "centrist" view but not neutral.

It is definitely a leading question (not sure about biased though). It is also a question that can put others on the "defensive". But then I ask - so what, again 95% of questions and responses in political and social threads are somehow putting someone on the "defensive". If that is one of the major criteria I'm being called out for, let's call out all others.

On snowflake, I will again contend that was in response to a like comment. Other than one time, I do not get personal & insult first. If you can find examples on the contrary, let me know and I'll concede the point.

TBH, never really thought about it but agree. the pro-life question your brought up can be viewed as a trap question to put someone on the defensive. Regardless, it is a valid question IMO.

I'll answer this question with my caveats and assumptions. I definitely do favor allowing abortions in case of rape and incest up to point of viability (currently at 24 weeks, + or - some) and probably viability++ (new caveat now that i'm thinking about it) if there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. those crazy stories about a frakker imprisoning women).

Thanks I agree.

Look everyone. I propose we end this series of posts about my question and my intentions. I think we can all agree this is a divisive issue and everyone that had a say has spoken their piece.

I am sorry some here think that was an unfair question. I appreciate the support I did get from others that thought it was an "okay" question.

As most of the times, we'll agree to disagree and move on.

Moving on to Philippines (since I'm here). Newly elected Marcos' son as President and Duterte's progeny as VP has been interesting. Duterte has been painted as Trump-like with his nationalism, heavy handedness and (some say) lack of law in pursuing his war on drugs and also his divisive statements.

Marcos won by 59% and closest challenger (former VP) at 28%, so a landslide really. BTW Manny Pacquaio was 3rd at 7%.

I've spoken to 2 locals who voted for Marcos. Basically, they like Duterte's "let's go kill drug dealers and sorry if some innocents get caught in the crossfire" and hope for that to continue. They are tired of the other sides old ways of talking but not doing anything.

They do agree that Philippine should align more with US than with China. I think Biden should take this opportunity for a fresh start and rebuild our alliances here as one more measure vs China.

I have a co-worker from the Philippines that basically says the same thing. According to her you couldn't walk down the street without some drug addict trying to steal your purse.

FWIW, the 2 locals I spoke to were in their mid-late 20's (but am unsure of the older folks).

This seems reverse to the US.

It's golf, but more related to politics.

Has anyone been following the LIV Golf Series controversies?

It looks like Phil Mickelson, Greg Norman, and Sergio Garcia have effectively killed their PGA tour careers or affiliation with the PGA tour by supporting the Saudi government and the creation of this series.

Jack Nicklaus came out today and said they offered him $100 million to do what Norman is doing right now, which is to be the face of the series. Norman was asked about the Khashoggi killing and said, "we've all made mistakes" and then continued to explain away their human rights record by saying he ignores the politics.

Er, I could forget a lot of things for $100M.

Should an Australian golfer really be called out here and stopped from doing "business" with SA? His decision and he seems willing to live with the consequences. His rejecting $100M is not going to do much or shift in the geopolitical situation there.

His easy comeback is why is the US and other countries still buying oil from them?

Getting back to our other discussion thread. Philippines is full of beautiful women. Definitely save up your money and come here and I am sure you'll be successful in dating regular women via local whatever app :). The plus is they do like Americans and they speak the best English in Asia that I've seen in my travels.

But don't sell or use drugs though!

I think the PGA is using the Saudi Arabia thing to eliminate competition. They have a monopoly and would like to keep it that way.

For reasons unrelated to the abortion debate, I think paternity testing should be mandatory in the hospital when a baby is born.

+1

I get what you’re saying but that could lead to a huge uptick of violence against women.

How so?

A study from 2001

No. 1 Cause of Death in Pregnant Women: Murder

and a study from 2021.

Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States

There is a very high amount of unreported rapes(60-80%). Women on the margins are exploited for sex exacerbated by power dynamics(boss/subordinate dynamic. “Sleep with me or lose your job”). Start DNA testing every baby and there’s going to be a lot of people out on the streets

This.

I am fascinated by the Middle Eastern investment in Western sports AKA sports washing. It reminds me of the Million Dollar Man character from the late 80's WWF

That's a good comparison because the Saudi regime actually pays the WWE $50 million PER SHOW to do a few shows there a year and run some pro-Saudi propaganda. That's resulted in long-ago retired wrestlers showing up just for those shows for a huge payday (including Goldberg, which is his real last name...). And womens wrestling where the women have to be covered head to toe. And one time the Saudis had some disagreement with Vince McMahon and wouldn't let the wrestlers' plane leave for a while. Fortunately they weren't kidnapped and beheaded. Also one of the Saudi princes demanded that former WWE champion Yokozuna be on the first show - unfortunately he died in 2000, so the WWE just sent another fat guy who vaguely looked like Yokozuna, and apparently that was acceptable.

The combined weirdness of pro wrestling and Saudi Arabia is pretty compelling stuff.

There's a storyline in there somewhere. Greg Norman as the elder babyface finally turning heel for money. Phil has fallen on hard times with some gambling debts and join the heel money faction.

Cawthorn is in serious trouble in the NC primary. He's gaining ground, but unless it picks up he's projected to fall short and both are above 30% so no runoff.

Hopefully one nutcase gone then

No kink shaming please

Are you referring to the (pretty innocent) gay/bi videos, or the multiple credible accounts of sexual assault?

Anyway, Cawthorn's a nutcase due to his repeating of standard QAnon claims, even if he's disavowed Q publicly.

when you remove all the warts what it boils down to is Cawthorn is a fool who isn't qualified to hold the office. Voters realized that. Gives me at least a shred of hope for the party

I actually was referencing the fact that he is clearly a "summer" complexion, yet his choice of lingerie was more along the lines of what a "winter" skin tone should wear.....If you're going to be a freak, at least do it in good taste. :cool:

Really? Seems to me the lesson is you can say whatever you like about Dems, but risk damaging the GOP and the party will gut you and leave you on the side of the road.

Kind of the impression I got too, it was all fun and forgiveness until he mentioned the coke orgies, still, his ouster may serve as a cautionary tale for some in not so safe seats to dial it back.

Let's be honest though, it really boils down to the voters growing weary of his brand of politician and realizing that while their rhetoric may be entertaining, they are probably less effective in getting stuff done than anyone in Washington. And that is saying a lot.