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".