Let the aggressive oppression of the South BEGIN!


That's an argument that your statements appear to support. Yet...the war appears to rage on, even if it's in much subtler form today. The overall sentiment and ideals that lead to it's beginnings still exist. Funny how that works.

I'm not sure the "war of northern aggression" is a good analogy. IMO it actually lends to my argument re: Palestinians of facing reality, getting your "country" (even though its not everything you want), and moving on.

The south wanted own country, the north smacked the south and won the war. The south didn't like it, didn't have a choice and was "subjugated".

Approx 150 years later here we are, all happy in the south, dominating football & basketball (and unhealthy eating but that's a different story).

What do you think is the realistic solution to the Palestinian plight? Keep on holding out and fighting for something better?

Wouldn't mind reading more on this if you can provide the link?

So the head of the Methodist Church called on Jeff Sessions. a Methodist to

"immediately reverse this decision"



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...gration-policy


Several Democrats eventually got into a detention center in New Jersey. Some more expected to get into one in Texas:


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/39...tention-center

Roger Stone and Michael Caputo forced to reveal they did indeed have contact with Russians during the campaign and did not tell Congress this. They both told Mueller and are now full conspiracy on it saying it was an FBI informant.


Trump associate Roger Stone reveals new contact with Russian national during 2016 campaign - The Washington Post

https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic...g-demographics

The quote comes from this report that is largely talking about problems with the orthodox communities. There's a ton of stuff out there on the challenges for Israel regarding its demographics.

Except they really weren't. They were given their lives, homes, property and largely forgiven and brought back into the fold to be made whole. What you're describing would be a the complete subjugation of the south, which might be the way those from the South see it, but a truly domineering champion would have wiped them off the map. That is sort of what you're saying though isn't it? This story would be completely different if they had truly been subjugated. Lost everything, kept as second hand citizens, and forced to stay in that role. This conversation would be very different.



Progress doesn't come all at once. Those who try and achieve the Holy Grail of all they seek rarely find it. Even MLK recognized that there were achievable goals to be had and when to take what's there in order to regroup and press again in the future. The Palestinian flaws are in their all or nothing stance regarding what they feel the answer is. Extremism in the dogma, eons of shifting conflict, lack of natural resources, the list goes on and on. The cultural dynamics of the region have been set in stone for centuries. Israel pushing a finger in every wound whenever they get a chance doesn't help matters much at all. Agreements not to expand settlements, or bad faith negotiating, or a lack of empathy for others massively complicate matters.

There is plenty wrong on both sides. We love an underdog in the US. We frequently cheer the plucky team that comes back against all odds. We relate to a rival who finally get's his own after years of total domination. We understand thanks to BF Skinner that rewards only need to be intermittent to solidify habit forming behavior. We of all people should understand the mindset behind the Palestinians after all this time. We'd be doing the same thing. The pragmatist in me says that there is obviously a middle ground that can be found here, and I think that has been the most vexing thing for US leadership. That neither side is able to come to a conclusion that will benefit everyone for the long run. Both sides are just too hesitant to lose face to ever go down in history books as being the one leader who failed (by giving anything up).

Preach it, PilotMan!

Yup, I agree. You had brought up the civil war and I said it wasn't a good analogy and shouldn't have tried to elaborate.


And here we are 50+ years later. What is there to show for it?

Palestinians have moved the needle and have made progress since those early years (e.g. some independence in West Bank, recognition as a state etc.) but the Israeli's have moved their needle far more.

The 4 options are (1) negotiate (2) keep on fighting while your support base decreases (3) status quo with incremental improvements (4) status quo without improving your situation (Gaza Strip).

It seems the Palestinians are doing #3 with some #2 but there is a good chance #4 will happen.


Interesting statement but not sure.

To your point, you have the Revolutionary War that shows this "spirit".

Then you have the Civil War that had the South/Palestinians surrender at Appomattox after fighting a war and coming to realize they couldn't win.

Admittedly, neither are great examples. What is your rationale/examples?


I agree. In theory, you want a "win-win" in business negotiations. Unfortunately, I don't think this holds true here, someone will "lose more".

So after 50+ years of great idealism but not much happening, lots of people suffering, and regressed/declining negotiating position (feel free to tell me if I'm wrong here), I think the Palestinians should accept reality, negotiate, and move on and try make their lives better.

It sounds as if you are advocating for keep holding out for hope and keep plugging. I am not.

Anyone have any thoughts on the border separation policy that is the fault of the Democrats even though it isn't actually happening, except it is actually happening, but the bible says it's okay?

Don't worry, I'm sure Space Force will take care of this.

So, you're cool with the south keeping statues of Robert E. Lee, or nah?

Also the Democrats want open borders so bad they are willing to enforce border policies that separate parents from kids.

I can see Sessions saying it.

I lost all respect for Sarah Huckabee parroting it.

Couldn't fathom going through this as a kid. I hated when my parents would go out of town for a couple days and leave us at the Grandparents.

https://www.propublica.org/article/c...gration-policy

Kyle Griffin on Twitter: """I'm going to take your child to get bathed." That's one we see again and again. ... The child goes off, and in a half an hour, twenty minutes, the parent inquires, "Where is my five-year-old?" ... And they say, "You won’t be seeing your child again."" https://t.co/syfG0u7UL2"

This seems like it can't be real...

Of all the stomach churning things this administration has done, this is by far the most visceral. I’m sure there is a portion of his base that has so dehumanized migrants/refugees that this won’t affect them, but that can’t be more then 10-12% right? … right?

A White House official tells @jeffzeleny that @PressSec didn't want to do the briefing today amid questions on child separation policy, so @SecNielsen is being flown in from New Orleans to take questions.

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 18, 2018

Lardass too big of a coward to answer questions today

Maybe 28%.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/polit...val/index.html

Republicans are 58% in favor...

Resign or stfu

I think they know now that with every picture, every audio, every video that this is a PR battle they will not win, and finally shake some of their base, especially evangelicals from their grasp.

Just mandate some church attendance and the evangelicals will be fine.

Why would you think this? He campaigned on this stuff. His Chief of Staff was on TV saying this is what they were going to do.

DHS Secretary says he's considering separating immigant children from their parents to deter illegal immigration https://t.co/VI7iRONztC

— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) March 6, 2017

This becomes more and more like the Simspons Monorail episode every day.

While everyone focuses on this, Wilbur Ross' grift is going well. Some good reporting by Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex.../#3b685e877e87

the_donald is currently full of posts highlighting crimes illegal immigrants have committed in the past. Fox News top story is currently about James Comey's e-mails. A Fox News story further down appears to be about administration officials "striking back" to defend the policy.

I mean we had a bunch of kids slaughtered in a high school a few months back and they decided the bad guys were the kids who were shot at and wanted to not have other kids shot at.

Heck, one of the talking points this morning was that these immigrant kids were crisis actors.

As it turns out, we were the shithole country all along.

I love you to pieces, man, but you're just dead wrong on this one.

Given your never-flagging kindness, generous disposition, and continued belief in the core goodness of people, you probably can't see it any other way. It's one of the things I admire about you.

I just don't think the evangelicals of your imagination exist any longer. That ship sailed with Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition in the early 90s. The evangelical bloc of today has shown us who they are by their actions, and it's time we started believing them.

It's one of the reasons I don't call myself evangelical any longer.

My Facebook feed is full of angry white men posting shit like "abortions have separated 63 million children from their parents since Roe v. Wade and you didn't care about that".

Also, this one 5 times:


And this:


I'd ask when they stopped teaching logical fallacies in high school, but I went to school with most of these guys, so I know the answer.

There are some true-believers who do tons of good in their life. But a big chunk of the Evangelical crowd doesn't care about the poor or needy. They're concerned with guns, tax cuts, and taking out their anger that no one wanted to fuck them in high school on today's women.

I mean the Pro-Life movement has been against a lot of policies that would reduce abortions.

Will be interesting to see if this goes through. Not sure Trump wants to fight it as he got the trademarks for Ivanka that he wanted initially. Doubt China is going to revoke them now.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-...ban-1529361710

The funny thing is that my personal experience tells me this isn't true. One-on-one, the people I went to church with were very caring and helpful and kind. They volunteered, formed food pantries, donated their time and financial resources.

It's just that they turned into assholes when they opened their mouths about the general topic of helping. That's when it became about taxes and crime and guns. Eventually, I just had to conclude that there's a ton of resentment that goes along with feeling obligated to be God's volunteer.

But I also think there's an element of being perfectly willing to help people who you want to help and not wanting to help people who you don't think deserve it. Sort of the same way I watched people rant about the evils of divorce and/or abortion until it was their son or daughter (or themselves) who was in an abusive relationship or decided to suction out a kid. Then it was time for compassion and forgiveness.

I get it. My dad was a minister most of the time I was growing up. I know that churches are full of imperfect people. I don't think any of this sort of hypocrisy between the message and the practice is new. We just now live in a world where people don't have the good sense to keep their loud-mouthed prejudices (not necessarily racial) in the inside vest pocket of their Sunday suit like they used to.

This so many times.


I'm generally Pro-Life, but I strongly believe in preventive measures such as birth control, etc., to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen. If people really cared about reducing abortions and the effects that they have, why wouldn't you be for birth control? (Of course, I already know the answer to that.)

I agree with this.

And I don't think it either or re:


There are many Christians/Evangelicals etc. that do good but there are times when they don't care about the poor or needy. They are imperfect and/or they probably think (to above post) that some "don't deserve it".

We all differ some on "who deserves or not".

What do you think that answer is? It's not obvious from your post, at least to me.

I'm good with 1. In Virginia.

I'm advocating as everyone has for years, for the sides to be able to be courageous, work toward trust, and forged bold solution. I'm not for the current path where one sideis declared winners and the other "subjugated " to rule.

I know. Seems they decided it was incredibly wealthy people who deserves it as seen by the recent tax cut. Or the bank bailouts. Or the corporate welfare.

The Evangelical stuff is a scam. They proved it when they went on about "family values" for decades and then elected a twice divorced philanderer who bragged about wanting to get his wife to abort his child.

It's just a bullshit way of pretending to have the high ground without actually having to be moral.

::: looks around for the person you described ::: :D


It's hard when you've been raised in a Christian family (Lutheran) where my Dad never said an evil word to anyone, and a mother who donated her time to soup kitchens, and other charities through the Church to not expect any Christian soul to be the same way, but even in my own family there are some "angry white men". so I know that what you say is true. I gave up on religion a long time ago, even before I realized I was gay and saw how most religions view it. But I still think there is a core goodness in many people, regardless of religion or lack thereof, and at times like this, it shines through. So sue me :)

Because they don't care about abortions. They care that women are having sex.

It hasn't worked for 50+ years and it hasn't worked when the US paid attention to it. I hope it works in the near future but I just don't see it as the Palestinians probably have less bargaining position than before (RM note about population notwithstanding).

Hypothetical question - if in 2068, the situation is still pretty much as is, would you think that maybe the Palestinians should have negotiated for a non-contiguous Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its co-capital? e.g. accepting what I consider to be reality and they should move on the best they can.

I'm just wondering if there is an upper limit here.

Maybe its how one defines Evangelical. I assume you are referring to the latter.

Are You An Evangelical? Are You Sure? : NPR

When do we open District 9?

Federal Judge strikes down Kris Koback's voter registration law in Kansas and orders him to take 6 hours of legal education on "federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...istration-case


In other news Kobach is running for governor of kansas.

An American and former CIA engineer was arrested today and charged with leaking classified info to Wikileaks:


http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...information-to

This. They want control of women, so they say, "You can't have abortions," but "you can't use birth control either." They want women to have 0% control of their reproductive rights.

Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I had a very pro-life mom(she wouldn't even allow our cat to have an abortion), but that is very much a myth spread by liberals.

How do you explain the approx 38% of women that say it should be illegal or greatly restricted? This is not an insignificant %.

I do think many women honestly struggle with this issue but ultimately believe in anti-abortion (or greatly restricted) because they have moral, ethical and religious concerns and/or believe in personal responsibility and accountability.

I don't think its fair to paint with a broad brush the 38% as being naive and manipulated by a political party.

Every major Pro-Life organization in this country has taken a stand against contraceptives or has actively fought to decrease funding for them. That's not a myth, it's reality.

Interesting days ahead of chicken.

Trump threatens additional tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods

My guess is that most evangelicals really mean some flavor of Reformed...but not in a mainstream denominational way.

That may be a side effect of the sorts of "evangelical" charismatic non-denom churches I grew up in...but what it mostly seemed like to me is that no one (other than the M.Div trained ministers) really had any idea of what their theological underpinnings were or where they came from. Some brand of Calvinism or Lutherism is as far as they get. Oh, and they love them some Jesus (non-sarcastically).

There are lots of small churches in the Midwest piloted by a guy (always a guy) who has a huge calling to be a minister, but not to get any education other than what he plainly reads in scripture and what God puts on his heart to say.

It's pretty much why The Shack became an international bestseller and Duck Dynasty became a franchise.

I'm sure those women dislike abortions. They just dislike other women having sex more.

First up, thank you for taking the time to answer the question. My response is basically the one Edward64 gave. To go into a bit more detail, the pro-life/pro-choice split, based on the latest polling I've seen, has slightly more women as pro-choice than men. That hasn't always been the case though; it was the other way around as recently as 5-6 years ago and over the last few decades at least it has never been a major difference one way or the other, it just makes small movements this way and that but has been pretty stable. In the UK it's on the other side with more women than men being pro-life. I don't know as much about the history there, but the point is that in order for your statement to be true, you basically are saying that half of women are mysognists, sexist against their own gender, and wanting to control … themselves? Is that seriously the argument here?

In my experience women are most emotional about the abortion debate(for obvious reasons), but it swings both ways. The pro-choice side feels the pro-lifers are betraying their gender blah blah blah, but a lot of pro-life women that I've known personally get as ardent and upset on the other side of things as they do about any subject. The people I'm talking about view it as antithetical to the whole idea of what a woman should be vis a vis motherhood, hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, etc.

So what's going on in birth control and the other stuff? I think this is a case of flawed assumptions based on not understanding the real argument of the other side, so a lot of talking past each other results. To use a contrary example, it's like conservatives calling those who want more gun control traitors or people who don't care about the Constitution. It's only true if you make certain assumptions inherent in the conservative mindset, assumptions that liberals generally don't agree with. Same thing here. Birth control is objectionable because A) some contraceptives, though not nearly as many as it once was, are abortifacients, and B) the same people often believe that extramarital sex is a moral evil, and encouraging that is not an acceptable option.

Similar arguments go for other points raised in the last couple of pages.


Like all of these things, there's some truth in this. There's a certain amount of people who are just hypocrites and so be it and fear of the other and all that. But there's another part here that informs a great deal of this sentiment. For that part, people aren't being assholes. They believe in helping the poor, but they don't believe they should be forcing other people to do it too. Some are libertarians, some just economic conservatives(I know, I was one) and they believe in a small, more limited government. They think it's wrong to tell other people what to do with their money vis a vis various federal entitlements. It's not because they don't want to help. And what's getting missed here is that belief in small government coincides with a genuine desire to help the underclass … they just don't agree with the 'liberal' prescription of how to do it. That's the level on which the engagement should take place, not 'they're just a bunch of hypocrites'. Not true in a lot of cases.

I get RU-486. Don't think those kind of drugs are what we are talking about. We are talking about people who have opposed access to the pill, Plan B, even condoms being given out. Groups that don't want insurance or taxpayer money to go to contraceptives.


That's what we have been saying. This is about people mad that other people have sex.

Tell me more about this space force.

I don't know if that's a myth spread by liberals or not, but my statement was my own reasoning. Why else would you be against birth control and contraceptives if you are against abortions? If you are really against abortions, using birth control would cut that down significantly.

Thank you for the reply. First of all, as I said earlier, I'm pretty much anti-abortion in most cases, so I pretty much fall in line with the 38% of women you described. I just believe you don't treat the effects of the problem, you treat the problem, and if you want to really cut down on abortions, promoting and educating people on responsible birth control is a really good way of doing that. You can't abort a baby that hasn't been conceived.

You say that people struggle with the moral issues of abortion, and I've seen that in my own family. If the baby is not conceived, then there's no struggle with morals to be had.

I don't think that women are misogynists, sexist against their own gender, and wanting to control themselves. If my statement came across like that, that was unintended. I'm just trying to figure out why people would shun reliable birth control if they want to keep abortions down.


Well, for (A), if that's the case, then there needs to be discussion about what to do with those types of birth control, but a lot of birth control (condoms, etc.) are not (as RainMaker pointed out earlier). And for (B), it's okay if people believe that extramarital sex is a moral evil. However, I don't think that should be imposed on people that don't believe the same. Some people have no problem with extramarital sex.

Not a medical Dr and I may be wrong. Specifically on Plan B, what I had heard is the below.

Emergency contraception: Emergency contraceptives are not abortion

I think the argument is "conception" begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg and not just when the fertilized egg implants on the lining (e.g. pregnancy). If people defend conception then Plan B is an abortifacient and some would argue also the pill. Sure it may not fit the medical definition of abortifacient but you can see the controversy.

I believe the woman has the right to choose up to X months (e.g. I am good with the pill and morning after) but there is a point in time when a baby is "viable" and abortion is problematic for me (e.g. late-term).

With that said, I don't believe it is just about men/women/politics controlling a woman's right to have sex or control of their reproductive right as some have indicate in this thread.

Yes, there is truth to that statement but 38% of women are not all like that. IMO, much more complex and nuanced.

See my above post on "conception" vs "pregnancy". Many of the arguments against birth control is they do terminate a fertilized egg (e.g. conception).

Although they may not fit the medical term of an abortifacient, many pro-lifers see it as a convenient technicality.

I think if the only "birth controls" available prevented "conception" (e.g. condoms), then there would be far less controversy IMO.


I agree with (A) but the problem of "conception" vs "pregnancy" will continue.

I also agree with (B) assuming both are consenting and of "age" (whatever that means as it differs with different countries).

Plan B works by preventing fertilization. The preventing an already fertilized egg from implanting was forced on them by the FDA for obvious political reasons. There is still no scientific evidence that is how it works and in fact loads of evidence in the opposite direction.

But the science doesn't matter because it's not about abortions. It's about sex.

And for those who believe life begins at fertilization, I think they might want to question why God would kill half those eggs. Would seem he is the big abortion fan if that's your point of conception.

Morning-After Pill Akin to Abortion? The Science Says No | TIME.com

I will concede this narrative because I like the generosity of your sentiment behind it. :)

I did more reading and concede this point.


However, will not concede this point. It is about sex but for many it is genuinely about ethics, morals, religious belief, personal responsibility etc. I do not think its mutually exclusive. We just differ here.


Never really thought about this but my take is its nature vs man-induced. You can take your argument to extremes and basically come down to - *every single thing* is God's plan, all the good and evil that happens in this world, every itty-bitty thing (which I don't believe).

Indeed. Many who are against abortion are also against expanded access to birth control, and it isn't because they are Catholic. It is generally conservative Evangelical Christians who don't like condoms being handed out or over-the-counter access to birth control pills and their reasoning is because it will just entice more people into having sex (as if they won't without it).

I know, right? :popcorn:

They are also against making adoptions easier and reducing assistance to the poor (who are the ones predominantly getting the abortions). So they hate abortions, but also won't support anything that decreases them. :shrug:

The sentiment I'm seeing among pro-Tariff farmers that are being hurt by this is that the world needs us more than we need the world. Seems pretty arrogant, doesn't it? Is this even remotely rooted in fact?

Take soybeans for example. China will likely look to Brazil for their soy needs. Yes, that will create opportunity to sell American soy elsewhere. But what would stop Brazil from just knocking down a bunch more rain forest and increasing their production? To me, this just opens opportunities for other countries to fill in the gaps and leave the American farmer out in the cold. The markets tend to agree with me as soybeans are at their lowest level since 2008 in the upcoming months.

But at least we don't have Hitlary!

38th most interesting story this news cycle...

Days after I sought comment from Wilbur Ross about his investment in a Kremlin-linked shipping firm, he shorted stock in the company, then sold it after my story with @sashachavkin came out, per @DanAlexander21 https://t.co/n0j7yTSl3u

— Mike McIntire (@mmcintire) June 18, 2018

I'm not sure if this is 39 or 37, but whoa...

Hagin had been thinking about leaving for the last few weeks. Yesterday, we revealed he had previously worked with key backers of an alleged "sex cult" and was one of a dozen to be invited to one of their events in the Alps called an "intensive" https://t.co/dBambr08vx https://t.co/8ZGMtRbOsZ

— Tarini Parti (@tparti) June 19, 2018

Just another day in paradise

U.S. Quits UN Human Rights Council, Saying It’s Anti-Israel

I not a fan of the human rights council, after all Saudi Arabia is on it, a country that beheaded a pro democracy protester and then literally crucified the body. But is disengagement the right play here?

Damned if you do or if you don't, frankly.

If you engage, you're engaging a council whose membership is 25%+ some of the world's worst offenders on human rights, and you don't even have the leverage of, say, the veto that comes with a permanent seat on the Security Council. There's more of them than there are of you, and you're not going to change their behavior diplomatically.

If you withdraw, the optics, despite the realities, are not great.

Disengagement may not be the right play; I'm not sure engagement is, either.

Following up on Jeff Sessions getting called out by his religion, more than 600 of his fellow Methodists accuse him of child abuse and other "doctrines contrary to established standards of doctrines" of the United Methodist Church:


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hund...ry?id=56003177

So Secretary Nielsen decided that eating in a Mexican restaurant in DC was a good idea. Protesters found her and let her know otherwise:


WATCH: Kirstjen Nielsen gets chased out of Mexican restaurant by DSA activists

DSA activists doing the Lord's work in separating members of the administration from their food.

1 Corinthians 8:8
"Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."

While having a work dinner tonight, the Secretary and her staff heard from a small group of protestors who share her concern with our current immigration laws that have created a crisis on our southern border.

— Tyler Q. Houlton (@SpoxDHS) June 20, 2018

These fucking people.

wow mark my words this guy's going to go far in the Trump administration.

Hahaha... what was that movie with Leslie Nielsen shouting "Nothing to see here" while explosions were happening in the background? Reminds me of that.

That would be The Naked Gun: The Naked Gun - "Nothing to see here!" (1080p) - YouTube

Fuck these motherfuckers and everyone who supports them!

So it sounds like Trump is about to reverse this policy that doesn't actually exist, but if it does exist, he has to follow it because it's the law, but the bible says that's okay and it's a good policy because it acts as a deterrent and it's all Obama's fault anyways.

Nailed it.

I don't see how the other guy didn't launch into a stream of profanity.

As I predicted Monday, once @POTUS got focused on the child separation issue he put an end to it. President @realDonaldTrump is a compassionate person. He was getting bad advice and info from his Chief of Staff, who started pushing this policy in March 2017 while at DHS. https://t.co/M4DDSJjSau

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) June 20, 2018

There's always someone else to blame.

It's amusing to see the folks defending the child separation policy suddenly saying see Trump fixed it! Glad he finally did it (though mostly seems to have done so when members of his party started to abandon him)

2 things.


First, I'm shocked that Jon hasn't stopped by to recommend just executing immigrants at the border.


Second, I'm half shocked that someone in trump's circle hasn't mentioned the same thing.

Not sure on the first, but I'm pretty sure on the 2nd it just hasn't been reported yet.

Just when things were beginning to look better:


Immigrant children forcibly drugged with 'powerful' psychotropics at Texas 'treatment center': lawsuit

MNKGA

Michael Cohen finally resigns from his post as Republican finance chairman, citing the Special Counsel's investigation and oddly enough took time in the letter to criticize Trump's policy of detaining children at the border:


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mich...ry?id=56033406

Loyalty amongst criminals only goes so far. At least let’s hope so.

That's very high-minded of you, thanks!


The thing about this is that it gets back to the whole idea that something gets imposed no matter what. You literally can't make a law at all without imposing morality one way or the other. While there are certainly some theocrats out there, generally they are few and far between. Most don't want adultery recriminalized or a blanket ban on all contraceptives. On the other hand, when the government subsidizes abortions, or when they are required to pay into a health plan that subsidizes contraception, then you've got morality being opposed the other way around.

I think the bottom line really is that it's just not as simple as 'if you want less abortion, support birth control' since that can carry with it negatives for society as well, such as eliminating some of the natural results of sexual activity. That doesn't mean they don't really want fewer abortions; they just don't favor that particular solution, favoring banning abortion instead and encouraging other options like adoption. It's also why a lot of these people support women's centers like the one in my hometown and a neighboring one where free resources, counseling, and ultrasounds are available. It's just a different way of dealing with the issue, one that doesn't require them to compromise their principles in order to advocate it.

What are these "natural results" that eliminating birth control has that would be viewed as a positive?

It also is as simple as "if you want less abortions, support birth control". Study after study shows a huge correlation between access to birth control and a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. It is the simplest, most cost effective way to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Anyone opposed to it does not really care about abortions.

I'm all for free resources, counseling, and ultrasounds. But the side that is Pro-Life has supported a side in politics that opposes federal funding for such things. It opposes public health care options. It opposes funding of centers that offer the services you describe. Actions speak louder than words.

And what principle is compromised if someone else purchases birth control for their private life? How weak does a person have to be to feel like their principles are shaken to the core if they see a woman buying Plan B at the pharmacy counter?

And my personal stance is I'm opposed to abortion. I think it's tragic that someone feels the need to go through with the procedure.

That's why I support policy that would dramatically reduce this. Free birth control to those who need and want it. Proper sex education to kids growing up. Quality access to health care for everyone like every other first world country.

But like I said, I'm for reducing abortions. Not someone angry that no one would fuck me in high school.

This is where I get off the bus. Assumption of motivation is always, without exception, wrong(and breathtakingly arrogant as well). Civil discourse dies if we aren't willing to presume the other side is arguing in good faith.

I think it's fair to assume that if you support policies that increase abortions, you probably don't care much about abortions.

If I was claiming to be passionate about motor vehicle deaths while simultaneously fighting to remove air bags and seat belts from cars, what would you think?

To say you support policies which increase abortions is a huge scope though - I'm personally not in favor of them I support them being available because I understand that people in some scenarios require them for various reasons that I do support (rape victims, health reasons etc.).

I also don't believe in forcing my opinion on others, who am I to judge in such a manner that it changes someones life uncontrollably? ... I'm not a single lady on welfare who wants to be able to work, but realizes that if she has a child she will be unable to etc.

I also understand that if you make legal abortions unavailable then people will attempt them through riskier approaches meaning you're putting peoples lives at risk.

(so no I disagree with your premise totally)

PS - I'd find the Republican stance on abortions more reconcilable if they could actually combine it with looking after the babies and mothers once the child arrives, instead they want poor people to be forced to have kids and then be unsupported totally ...

Alright, I'll bite.

I'm very pro choice. Choice is an option, it's not a guarantee. I'm so tired of the idea that abortion is the result of not taking responsibility or having accountability. What a convenient standard. Choice allows women to do just that. They are being responsible for not bringing a child into the world that will end up in a situation where they cannot succeed or thrive for one reason or another.

There are many other situations where current laws are already restricting perfectly valid reasons for needing the procedure like a miscarriage, which doctors won't remove in Ohio, unless there are complications for the women. This leads to completely unnecessary pain and suffering for the women where she has to endure the pain of the loss with the physical pain of the body. Restrictions like this are a pure result of forcing women to feel childbirth as a punishment in the name of morality.

We endured 2, traumatic end of first term miscarriages where the whole pregnancy was in doubt for 3 weeks before the doctors finally decided that it wouldn't be viable. We were able to get the D&C and move on with our lives. Policies that would have forced my wife to pass the babies naturally are simply too cruel. Furthermore, Mike Pence and his policy that all pregnancies that are terminated early, even in this situation would need to have the remains treated as a live baby, needing a death certificate and burial just add insult to injury.

That is the exact moment that I left organized religion. God really doesn't give that many fucks about our day to day. It's not a grand plan. It's not everything happens for a reason. It's shit happens and we deal with it on our own or we don't. That's it.

The idea that every life is sacred for pro-life is also a convenient concept. Given the hypothetical option of saving 100 fertilized eggs from a fertility clinic or saving the life of a screaming 5-yr old in the same burning building how can you justify not saving the fertilized eggs?

It's not a simple one size fits all equation, like pro-life advocates say, and to treat it as such is disingenuous.

What is your stance on late-term abortions? Does your support extend past the point of "viability" whenever that is?

Similar to why I am non-practicing. I agree with your sentiments except I do think there is a grand plan. Its not on a personal level but there was and is a plan.

Don't know what it is but I picture God overlooking all the different planets etc. and saying "hmmm, interesting what's going on there with their free will".