Liberal or Conservative?

[Sean Og]

What I mean is that it, being free, would cause more people to go than it would otherwise.

I hear what you saying, although my personal opinion is that if it causes more to attend college is that such a bad thing for society as a whole? Education contributes greatly to a tolerant society....i.e. tolerant / understanding of other races, cultures, religions etc.

Also, making it free to everyone is inefficient, because there are people who CAN pay for it and would do so.

I agree and is one change I would make to the Irish system, some sort of graduated scale as household income increases...more or less aimed wealthy I guess

It would also cause more people to go into fields that are not useful to society, because we are relying on the fancies of an eighteen year old. Four years free to study Babylonian cave art while delaying entering the work force for a few years? Why not?  And while Babylonian cave art may be a fine subject to be studied, I just think you should have some skin in the game instead of having tax payers foot the bill.

This is something I have always been a little torn about, I agree whilst a fine subject to study it doesn't have the same ROI for the taxpayer as an engineering or science degree may have. That said many graduates of such courses end up going back doing a second degree and this 2nd degree is not free in Ireland (unless you meet mature student criteria). Another thing I have noticed that those studying courses similar to your example tend to come from families of higher socio-economic status. I'm generalizing here a little but sons for farmers, plumbers, carpenters or electricians such as myself go for degrees such as engineering, accounting, etc rather than Irish literature of the 1600's.

[Sean Og]

I sincerely hope that if the ACA is the future for our healthcare system, they add some sort of means testing so subsidies are actually going to the poor and not to people who roll fat retirement account balances into a roth and retire super early even though they have the means to pay their share for healthcare.

Means testing is paramount to the success of social programs.

Ireland essentially has a two tier portfolio or social welfare programs

• Benefit/Contributory - Not Means tested. Based on a persons PRSI/Social insurance contributions throughout years of working. Essentially getting your own money back. Some are duration based such as unemployment benefit after which you will drop down to the basic allowance if still unemployed which is means tested.
• Allowance/Basic - Means Tested. For those who have not contributed enough to PRSI to qualify for the higher Benefit tier.

Yes as with everything there is some who try to abuse the system but means testing does a good job of ensuring those who genuinely need support get it.

[sunday]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

Its no more illogical than this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Why does federal law recognize a child in utero as a legal victim if they are hurt or killed...unless the mother wants to abort them, then its ok?  Apparently pregnant women are the only ones with the right to kill other than as an act of self defense or war.

I agree with you, that law makes no sense.

Most the people I know who support limited abortion do so not to punish women for having sex, pill/implant + condom leaves you with what, a 0.000000001% chance of pregnancy, its because they think abortion is disgusting and wrong but recognize there can be extenuating circumstances.  Whoops I got a little crazy last weekend and was irresponsible is quite a different situation than I was violently raped against my will.  Having an unviable fetus that will not make it full term anyhow, or a situation where there are complications and the mother will probably die before getting to full term due to the pregnancy anyhow is a different situation than a healthy fetus and a healthy mother.

The failure rate of contraceptives is not 0.000000001%.

If you think a fetus is a person with individual rights, it really doesn't matter that there is difference between pregnancy thru a crazy weekend vs. violent rape. The right of an individual person to live and not be killed is the ultimate right in our society. If you don't think a fetus has comparable rights to other fully formed human beings, that lines can start be drawn, as the Supreme Court has.

Or what about a situation where an accidental pregnancy occurs.  Why is it if the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, the father is still on the hook for 18 years of child support.  If you reverse the roles, and the mother doesn't want the child and the father does, why is it the mother can get an abortion and the father can do nothing to see his child given a chance at life?  That's pretty illogical as well, isn't it?

Child support is to benefit the child, not to punish the father or to benefit the mother. Pregnant women can get abortions because they possess the uterus and the fetus contained within it. Men and women don't have the same biological abilities, even if that seems unfair to you.

[TheNick]

The failure rate of contraceptives is not 0.000000001%.

Child support is to benefit the child, not to punish the father or to benefit the mother. Pregnant women can get abortions because they possess the uterus and the fetus contained within it. Men and women don't have the same biological abilities, even if that seems unfair to you.

Men and women don't have the same biological abilities?  Last I checked women required sperm to get pregnant.  Unless they've developed synthetic sperm men and women are both 50% responsible when a pregnancy occurs.

Yeah I suppose you could say well men shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared to be a father, yet the same could be said about women who want abortions, couldn't it?  Shouldn't have had sex if you weren't prepared to be a mother...yet you think people who want to limit or do away abortions want to punish women for having sex lol.

I'm just pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy on the issue people love to overlook, especially women.

[sunday]

You're not going to keep people from having sex, so that's rather a moot point. Consent to sex should not necessarily mean consent to parenthood. In a perfect world, both mothers and fathers would have to agree in order for children to be born, but unfortunately for men, it does not work that way. And to have a world where men can force women to get abortions against their will is a terrifying concept.

Since society doesn't want to take on the costs of children born out of wedlock, child support is a thing. I personally don't think it's an especially fair or rational thing, but until someone comes up with a better system, it is what we have.

[redbird]

I don't agree enough with any political party to bother to have membership in any, but I suppose libertarian is as close as it gets for me. The Republican/conservative side almost feels like my version of Opposite Day. I'm fine with people owning guns, but many other conservative platform ideas I simply don't identify with.

I also don't get the people who say they are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Why would anyone want the government to waste money? Unless you're saying you think the government should support less social programs. I find that ironic though, when I can think of at least one social program that Mustachians happily take advantage of when they have less income (aka FIRE) - that being the Affordable Care Act. I personally am even one of those. I'm paying a LOT less for health insurance now that I'm FIRE than I did when I actively worked because my low income (living off of investments) means I'm eligible for a lot of subsidies.

[TheNick]

You're not going to keep people from having sex, so that's rather a moot point. Consent to sex should not necessarily mean consent to parenthood. In a perfect world, both mothers and fathers would have to agree in order for children to be born, but unfortunately for men, it does not work that way. And to have a world where men can force women to get abortions against their will is a terrifying concept.

Yet a woman can abort a fetus that a man is 50% responsible for against his will and you are totally ok with it...why is that not a terrifying concept as well?

[pbkmaine]

Because it's in her body.

[sunday]

Forcing a man to pay a part of his income to support his child or dragging women to the abortion table against their will... both bad options, but I'll take the first one.

[tobitonic]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it just strikes me as incredibly odd how many people are far right or far left and think they are centrists.  Pro tip folks...if you are voting for Sanders or Cruz...you are not a centrist.

From an American perspective? No. From a global perspective? Absolutely. You can find a bunch of non-US people in this thread who consider Sanders centrist. The world is much more liberal than America, it's skewed if you only consider the perspectives that are immediate to you.

If the whole world were communists, and America was only socialists, would we be considered right wingers at that point just because communism is a little further left than socialism, and from their perspective we are to the right?

Yes, in much the same way as it would be if the US were the only nation left that didn't offer universal health care or paid parental leave or any other social issue.

[TheNick]

Forcing a man to pay a part of his income to support his child or dragging women to the abortion table against their will... both bad options, but I'll take the first one.

I asked you to reverse the roles.  Why do you think a father should have no say whatsoever when a mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't even though they are both 50% responsible for the creation of the fetus?  She is literally forcing the abortion upon the father and that is perfectly okay with you, but the mere thought of a man forcing an abortion upon a woman is not...do you not see the double standard and hypocrisy there?

Because it's in her body.

Uh...the child's father was in her body too, funny how she'd let random guys in there but won't let an innocent life wanted by the father have 9 months to grow.  Why are you so okay with father's literally having zero parental rights for a fetus they are 50% responsible for creating?

[pbkmaine]

You are equating having sex with being forced to bear children? What century are we in again?

[SwordGuy]

N/A. I prefer "rational centrist".

I'm with you!

I piss off my liberal, conservative and libertarian friends on different topics.   And make them cheer on others.

[sunday]

funny how she'd let random guys in there but won't let an innocent life wanted by the father have 9 months to grow. 

And there it is. If that slut be opening her legs for "random guys" she better be opening her uterus for 9 months to the random guy's spawn too.

MOD NOTE: No.  Not okay.  Read the forum rules.

[TheNick]

You are equating having sex with being forced to bear children? What century are we in again?

No, I'm comparing the 100% of the reproductive rights women have to the 0% of the reproductive rights men have.

A man and a woman get pregnant together...if the man doesn't want the baby and the woman does she can keep it against his will and he still has to be responsible for his actions and at a minimum provide support for 18 years, but more than likely its a lifetime commitment for him.

A man and a woman get pregnant together...if the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does she can get an abortion against his will even though the kid is half his and she doesn't have to be responsible at all for her actions, because she can't be bothered to go through 9 months of discomfort.

So you are totally ok a man can be forced into a lifetime commitment that will require vast amounts of emotional and financial resources against his will, but you think asking a woman for 9 months of discomfort against her will is too much to ask even though they both willingly engaged in sexual intercourse?

We're in the 21st century...where women have all the reproductive rights and men have none.

[TheNick]

funny how she'd let random guys in there but won't let an innocent life wanted by the father have 9 months to grow. 

And there it is. If that slut be opening her legs for "random guys" she better be opening her uterus for 9 months to the random guy's spawn too.

Hooray!  It took quite a bit of beating around the bush but you helped me make a point!  As a far leftists who thinks they are centrist said earlier in this thread....

Additionally, there is no call on the far Left for supporting the use of abortion as a means of birth control. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all.

And one page later in the thread...what do I have...women arguing they should have the right to use abortion as a method of birth control lol.

[pbkmaine]

Women's reproductive rights are being eroded in many parts of the US. Perhaps that thought comforts you.

[sunday]

you think asking a woman for 9 months of discomfort against her will is too much to ask even though they both willingly engaged in sexual intercourse?

Yes.

And it's not just "discomfort". She has greater chance of dying by carrying a pregnancy than by an early term abortion. Who the hell do you think you are to be able to make that decision for someone else?

[sunday]

And one page later in the thread...what do I have...women arguing they should have the right to use abortion as a method of birth control lol.

Please point out where I say that, because I'm interested to know. Saying women should have a right to have an abortion does not equal saying it should be used as birth control, FYI.  Do you think women are excited and happy to get abortions?  Contraceptives fail. Accidents happen. No one looks sits around hoping they'll get to have an abortion one day.

[sunday]

Sorry to have derailed this thread so much. Back to Liberals and Conservatives.

[TheNick]

Women's reproductive rights are being eroded in many parts of the US. Perhaps that thought comforts you.

No maam.  What I want is more reproductive rights for fathers, not less for women with big daddy government stepping in to twist their arm in the matter.  Its not right a man should have to man up for an accidental pregnancy the woman wants to keep even if he doesn't, but women don't have to woman up for an accidental pregnancy the father wants to keep if she doesn't.

And this extends to issues beyond abortions.  A good friend of mine I work with got a woman pregnant when they were both 18.  They both wanted the baby...she decided she didn't want him.  In his state custody rights don't come with child support...so he ended up legally on the hook for child support with no visitation rights at all.  At the time he was making 240 a week and 60 was going to her plus he had to provide health insurance for the kid...which he was totally ok with, he'd have given more if he could afford it.  Once the child support was settled, he asked the court to appoint him a lawyer so he could fight for visitation rights.  The court told him lawyers are only appointed in criminal cases...for family court he had to pay for his own.  He was living off 180 dollars a week...there was no way he could afford one.

It wasn't until years later when he worked his way into a higher paying job and could afford to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees, because his child's mother came from money and was willing to fight him tooth and nail just to make his life miserable, that he got to meet his own daughter.  Keep in mind...this guy is an upstanding citizen...he has no criminal record other than a bullshit restraining order the wife had placed on him because she felt threatened...even though he never laid a finger on her and he was never charged or convicted of actually doing anything, is well known in his community as he is a volunteer emt/fireman, and has since been happily married for 8 years to a woman with 2 kids that he has been raising like his own...there is literally no reason whatsoever to deny this guy access to his own daughter.  The first time this guy met his daughter she was 12, it was only done with a lawyer as a witness while sitting in the lawyers office, and the girl pretty much called him a piece of shit who never paid child support and never wanted to meet her...obviously all lies as he was never late on a child support payment and had kept records to prove it, and the only reason he hadn't been there for her since she was an infant was because her mother legally blocked him.

So like I said...do I think its a win because women get less rights and the government steps in to call the shots?  No maam, I do not.  Do I want to see fathers have more rights considering our current laws give women all the power?  Yes maam, I do.  Stories like the above should never happen...fathers should never be denied their children any more than a woman should ever be forced to have an abortion...and to be quite blunt about it my friend was lucky he got to meet her daughter when she was 12, because there are other men out there put in a situation where the mother aborts the baby against their will and they never get to meet their child.

[LeRainDrop]

The site that I'm linking below does a really good job of summarizing the views of modern American "liberals" and "conservatives" in a way that is even-handed, not judgmental.  It is very consistent with my studies as a political science major in college.  The chart puts me on the "conservative" side for political views, economic views, and personal responsibility, but on the liberal side for social views.  It also links to a really interesting TED Talk.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

[TheNick]

Please point out where I say that, because I'm interested to know. Saying women should have a right to have an abortion does not equal saying it should be used as birth control, FYI.  Do you think women are excited and happy to get abortions?  Contraceptives fail. Accidents happen. No one looks sits around hoping they'll get to have an abortion one day.

So let me get this straight...you are saying healthy woman + healthy fetus getting an abortion isn't a form of birth control?  What the hell is it then?  Sure its not their primary form of birth control, I highly doubt women plan on going in for abortions every six months because taking the pill is too difficult...but its still a form of birth control none the less.

[iamlindoro]

So let me get this straight...you are saying healthy woman + healthy fetus getting an abortion isn't a form of birth control?  What the hell is it then?  Sure its not their primary form of birth control, I highly doubt women plan on going in for abortions every six months because taking the pill is too difficult...but its still a form of birth control none the less.

Birth control is, by definition, the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion can't be birth control even if it *was* used as a matter of convenience, because you can't prevent something after it's already happened.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20control

[TheNick]

The site that I'm linking below does a really good job of summarizing the views of modern American "liberals" and "conservatives" in a way that is even-handed, not judgmental.  It is very consistent with my studies as a political science major in college.  The chart puts me on the "conservative" side for political views, economic views, and personal responsibility, but on the liberal side for social views.  It also links to a really interesting TED Talk.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

Nice link.  I'd fall about 2/3 on the conservative side and 1/3 on the liberal side myself and I fully considered myself to be right of center even before reading that.  Meanwhile we have people that would be 100% on the liberal side claiming they are centrists and the rest of us are far right lol.

[LeRainDrop]

So let me get this straight...you are saying healthy woman + healthy fetus getting an abortion isn't a form of birth control?  What the hell is it then?  Sure its not their primary form of birth control, I highly doubt women plan on going in for abortions every six months because taking the pill is too difficult...but its still a form of birth control none the less.

Birth control is, by definition, the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion can't be birth control even if it *was* used as a matter of convenience, because you can't prevent something after it's already happened.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20control

Honestly, dude, did you even read your link?  The full definition includes, "control of the number of children born."  Also, the words themselves say it -- it's called "birth" control, not "pregnancy" control.

Anyway, this isn't an issue that I've personally resolved in my own mind, so I don't express any opinion on whether the laws should be changed.

[TheNick]

So let me get this straight...you are saying healthy woman + healthy fetus getting an abortion isn't a form of birth control?  What the hell is it then?  Sure its not their primary form of birth control, I highly doubt women plan on going in for abortions every six months because taking the pill is too difficult...but its still a form of birth control none the less.

Birth control is, by definition, the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion can't be birth control even if it *was* used as a matter of convenience, because you can't prevent something after it's already happened.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20control

Uh...did you even read that?

 Full Definition of birth control

    1 : control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception :  contraception

    2 :  contraceptive devices or preparations

Control the number of children born...that doesn't limit it to contraception only.  Birth control pills, condoms, morning after pill, abortion...all methods of controlling the number of children that are born.

[iamlindoro]

Honestly, dude, did you even read your link?  The full definition includes, "control of the number of children born."  Also, the words themselves say it -- it's called "birth" control, not "pregnancy" control.

Anyway, this isn't an issue that I've personally resolved in my own mind, so I don't express any opinion on whether the laws should be changed.

Uh... did you?  Because you put a period at the spot which was convenient for you, rather than quoting the full passage:

"control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception"

Here's another one for you.  I can't wait to see where you add punctuation in this one.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351

[sunday]

So let me get this straight...you are saying healthy woman + healthy fetus getting an abortion isn't a form of birth control?  What the hell is it then?  Sure its not their primary form of birth control, I highly doubt women plan on going in for abortions every six months because taking the pill is too difficult...but its still a form of birth control none the less.

Birth control is, by definition, the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion can't be birth control even if it *was* used as a matter of convenience, because you can't prevent something after it's already happened.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20control

Thank you for the definition. I always thought that the term "birth control", used colloquially, meant something you use as the main method of preventing birth.  So, condoms would be used as "birth control" while abortions would terminate pregnancies in case of failure.  And a person who used only abortions without other methods would be using it as "birth control." But the definition you provided is more useful.

[LeRainDrop]

Honestly, dude, did you even read your link?  The full definition includes, "control of the number of children born."  Also, the words themselves say it -- it's called "birth" control, not "pregnancy" control.

Anyway, this isn't an issue that I've personally resolved in my own mind, so I don't express any opinion on whether the laws should be changed.

Uh... did you?  Because you put a period at the spot which was convenient for you, rather than quoting the full passage:

"control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception"

Here's another one for you.  I can't wait to see where you add punctuation in this one.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351

The full quote doesn't change the meaning.  It says "especially by," not "only by."  Seriously, I'm not expressing an opinion on the issue, just on reading comprehension.

[TheNick]

Honestly, dude, did you even read your link?  The full definition includes, "control of the number of children born."  Also, the words themselves say it -- it's called "birth" control, not "pregnancy" control.

Anyway, this isn't an issue that I've personally resolved in my own mind, so I don't express any opinion on whether the laws should be changed.

Uh... did you?  Because you put a period at the spot which was convenient for you, rather than quoting the full passage:

"control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception"

Here's another one for you.  I can't wait to see where you add punctuation in this one.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351

I posted the full definition and it still supports what LeRainDrop has said.

By the way...I don't know if you noticed...but in the second link you posted, if you click on the slideshow it contains the morning after pill as birth control.  Its effective within 72 hours of having sex.  Chances are if an egg is going to get fertilized its going to be before that 72 hour window is up...so basically the morning after pill just induces a super early abortion.

So what you are trying to say is an abortion a day after conception is birth control but an abortion 3 weeks after isn't?

[Cathy]

Even the Supreme Court of the United States appears to agree that abortion is within the ordinary meaning of "birth control". In Part III of the lead opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it is stated that "[a]bortion is customarily chosen as an unplanned response to the consequence of unplanned activity or to the failure of conventional birth control ...". 505 US 833, 856 (1992). This part of the opinion was joined by a majority of the judges and so it is part of the opinion of the Court. The Court doesn't explicitly say that abortion is a form of birth control, but in the quoted sentence, the opinion contrasts abortion to "conventional birth control" (emphasis mine). This seemingly implies that abortion is a form of birth control, just not a "conventional" form (because otherwise the word "conventional" would not have added anything).

Note: I express no view on any issue discussed in this thread, including that I express no view on this semantic issue.

[iamlindoro]

By the way...I don't know if you noticed...but in the second link you posted, if you click on the slideshow it contains the morning after pill as birth control.  Its effective within 72 hours of having sex.  Chances are if an egg is going to get fertilized its going to be before that 72 hour window is up...so basically the morning after pill just induces a super early abortion.

So what you are trying to say is an abortion a day after conception is birth control but an abortion 3 weeks after isn't?

I'm going to try to remain quasi-diplomatic here, but you literally have no idea what you're talking about.  The morning after pill *only* prevents ovulation or fertilization.  Contrary to what you might think, it does *not* prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg, nor does it cause an abortion in the case of an implanted fertilized egg.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6413/9611/5654/Difference_Between_the_Morning-After_Pill_and_the_Abortion_Pill.pdf

In its approval of the morning-after pill, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) declared, “Emergency
contraceptives act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation
and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova
(thereby inhibiting implantation)” (FDA, 1997). More
recently, studies suggested that progestin-only
morning-after pills work only by preventing ovulation
or fertilization, and have no effect on implantation
(Croxatto et al., 2003; Novikova et al., 2007). In 2008, a
consortium of authorities declared that progestin-only
emergency contraception does not interfere with
implantation (ICEC-FIGO, 2008). UPA works only by
preventing ovulation (Glasier, 2010).

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html

Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized.

Among those who took it on the day of ovulation or after, there were about the number of pregnancies that would be expected with no use of EC; if LNG were effective at preventing implantation, it would most certainly be more effective when taken after ovulation.

Thus, a morning after pill does not differ in any way from regular hormonal birth control.

[ender]

I don't even understand what the point (or benefit) of this argument is.

[bacchi]

I'm going to try to remain quasi-diplomatic here, but you literally have no idea what you're talking about.  The morning after pill *only* prevents ovulation or fertilization.  Contrary to what you might think, it does *not* prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg, nor does it cause an abortion in the case of an implanted fertilized egg.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6413/9611/5654/Difference_Between_the_Morning-After_Pill_and_the_Abortion_Pill.pdf

Right. The morning after pill is not an abortifacient.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20399948

There's obviously some confusion between Plan B and Ru486.

[sunday]

The site that I'm linking below does a really good job of summarizing the views of modern American "liberals" and "conservatives" in a way that is even-handed, not judgmental.  It is very consistent with my studies as a political science major in college.  The chart puts me on the "conservative" side for political views, economic views, and personal responsibility, but on the liberal side for social views.  It also links to a really interesting TED Talk.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

Just watched this talk, thanks for the link.

[iamlindoro]

I don't even understand what the point (or benefit) of this argument is.

Me neither, I just remember four hours ago when I decided I wasn't going to be drawn into this, then I blacked out, and when I came to, I was typing this post.

[iamlindoro]

Additionally, there is no call on the far Left for supporting the use of abortion as a means of birth control. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all.

And one page later in the thread...what do I have...women arguing they should have the right to use abortion as a method of birth control lol.

But back to the original crux of the argument.  I concede that some may use "birth control" as an umbrella term which includes both contraception and any means to prevent birth.  If your definition of "birth control" in the above is solely the prevention of birth, then yes, Women should have the right to use abortion to prevent birth.  Because that's what abortion is for.  What tipster (and I, and likely everyone else arguing with you) was likely making the case for, is that nobody is suggesting that abortion be used rather than contraception (which includes ONLY methods of preventing pregnancy). 

But still, if you think that you gain anything by my admission, if birth control = no birth, then yes, women should be able to use abortion as birth control by that definition.  In fact, I think they should be able to do that well beyond the parameters in which it is currently permitted.

[TheNick]

In fact, I think they should be able to do that well beyond the parameters in which it is currently permitted.

Sir no need to get all pro choice on me.  I'm pro choice as well...I just think men should have more input in that choice considering men are 50% responsible for the creation of a fetus yet in cases where the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, the man literally has no say in the matter and has to stand by powerless as she murder his unborn child.  That is unacceptable.

In cases of accidental pregnancies, women can force men into a life long commitment as a father even if it is against their will, but if all a man requests from the woman is 9 moths of pregnancy that is unreasonable?

The laws literally make zero sense.  A man could get a woman pregnant and ask her to get an abortion.  She could decline, and he could poison her with something that kills the fetus and get charged with murdering it.  Flip the roles.  A man could get a woman pregnant and beg her not to get an abortion.  She could decline and go ahead with the abortion and its totally legal.  In both of those situations one of the people 50% responsible for that fetus aborts it against the will of the other...how is it murder in one case and completely ok in the other?

[yuka]

Other than dcmustachio and the abortion fun on page 3, this seems to be an uncommonly civil politics thread!

And that, folks, illustrates how there's no such thing as "socialism" in American politics (regardless of what Sanders calls himself) -- actual socialism is crazy extreme stuff like taking kids away from their mothers to be raised by the State.

There is anti-statist socialism, aka Libertarian Socialism. It's pro-union and anti-government. Oh, and anti-capitalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Can we add that category to the poll? ;)

The link to libertarian socialism was interesting; from my view, it described libertarianism perfectly, and then call itself socialism for delineating what is typically assumed would come to be under a libertarian system. If your preferred government is minimal government, doesn't that mean accepting whatever system people use for interaction? Seems like there would be some unions and a lot of capitalism.

I'm probably the most useful voter the Democratic party could hope for outside of someone who votes for Democrats, because I sit out generals after voting for the wrong Republican. In 2012, I voted for Paul in the Republican primary, then sat out the general in my significant swing state. In 2016 I'll surely vote Paul in the primary again; in the general my hierarchy of people to vote against goes Clinton, Trump, Carson, Sanders. So my first priority is voting against Clinton, followed by voting against Trump, and so on.. Clinton and Trump can each inspire me to vote against them; beyond that, it's a toss-up whether I bother to send my ballot in for the general.

[Cressida]

The laws literally make zero sense.  A man could get a woman pregnant and ask her to get an abortion.  She could decline, and he could poison her with something that kills the fetus and get charged with murdering it.  Flip the roles.  A man could get a woman pregnant and beg her not to get an abortion.  She could decline and go ahead with the abortion and its totally legal.  In both of those situations one of the people 50% responsible for that fetus aborts it against the will of the other...how is it murder in one case and completely ok in the other?

IT'S
HER
BODY

[sunday]

In 2016 I'll surely vote Paul in the primary again; in the general my hierarchy of people to vote against goes Clinton, Trump, Carson, Sanders. So my first priority is voting against Clinton, followed by voting against Trump, and so on.. Clinton and Trump can each inspire me to vote against them; beyond that, it's a toss-up whether I bother to send my ballot in for the general.

So if it's Clinton vs. Trump in the general, do you vote for Trump, or will you be just too disgusted and sit out?

[Squirrel away]

I'm left leaning and liberal but then I'm British. If I lived in the US I assume I would be viewed as very left leaning.

IT'S
HER
BODY

+1. That just about sums it up.:)

[okonumiyaki]

Tory in the UK, which makes me a US liberal...

[soccerluvof4]

Conservative on fiscal and defense issues, liberal/libertarian on social ones.  I feel far more strongly on fiscal/defense issues than I do on social ones (as a straight married male), so I identify as conservative even though I'm embarrassed by a lot of conservative social stances.

I too am Conservative on Fiscal and Defense Issues but am moving more to the center/left on other issue

To the question of Hillary or Trump I just know I would not vote for Hillary. That has nothing to do with parties as much as it does with I am done with Clintons and the Bush families in the white house. And for alot of reasons people to like Trump Hillary /the Clintons are just crooks.

Sadly another election of the lesser evil. Would really like to see a 3rd party rise and get traction.

[Gin1984]

Conservative on fiscal and defense issues, liberal/libertarian on social ones.  I feel far more strongly on fiscal/defense issues than I do on social ones (as a straight married male), so I identify as conservative even though I'm embarrassed by a lot of conservative social stances.

I too am Conservative on Fiscal and Defense Issues but am moving more to the center/left on other issue

To the question of Hillary or Trump I just know I would not vote for Hillary. That has nothing to do with parties as much as it does with I am done with Clintons and the Bush families in the white house. And for alot of reasons people to like Trump Hillary /the Clintons are just crooks.

Sadly another election of the lesser evil. Would really like to see a 3rd party rise and get traction.

Given that Sanders is an independent, it is sort of like they are.

[browneyedgirl]

History has shown that women will have abortions whether they're legal or not. So don't ask whether or not they should be legal. Ask whether or not they should be safe. Legal abortions are safe abortions. Making them illegal won't do anything except cause more women to die needlessly during what should be a simple procedure.

Also, the best way to decrease abortions is to increase sex Ed (not abstinence only but comprehensive) and access to long term effective birth control (pill, iud, etc).

[TheNick]

The laws literally make zero sense.  A man could get a woman pregnant and ask her to get an abortion.  She could decline, and he could poison her with something that kills the fetus and get charged with murdering it.  Flip the roles.  A man could get a woman pregnant and beg her not to get an abortion.  She could decline and go ahead with the abortion and its totally legal.  In both of those situations one of the people 50% responsible for that fetus aborts it against the will of the other...how is it murder in one case and completely ok in the other?

IT'S
HER
BODY

I'm not surprised there are so many pro lifers out there while so many women are hypocritical and sexist on the issue.  For many men, voting pro life is the only way to save their unborn children from the slaughter of abortion against their will...its too bad women refuse to be reasonable and give men any reproductive rights at all.

[Gin1984]

The laws literally make zero sense.  A man could get a woman pregnant and ask her to get an abortion.  She could decline, and he could poison her with something that kills the fetus and get charged with murdering it.  Flip the roles.  A man could get a woman pregnant and beg her not to get an abortion.  She could decline and go ahead with the abortion and its totally legal.  In both of those situations one of the people 50% responsible for that fetus aborts it against the will of the other...how is it murder in one case and completely ok in the other?

IT'S
HER
BODY

I'm not surprised there are so many pro lifers out there while so many women are hypocritical and sexist on the issue.  For many men, voting pro life is the only way to save their unborn children from the slaughter of abortion against their will...its too bad women refuse to be reasonable and give men any reproductive rights at all.

Excuse you.  It is neither sexist nor hypocritical to want autonomy over one's own body.  Until someone invents a portable womb, the fetus is dependent on a woman's body.  Doing what you would like is giving women less rights than a corpse and a fetus more rights than any living person.  We do not allow forcing of organs for living people from corpses of even when it means the death of another person (and frankly no harm to the corpse), we don't force people to give blood or marrow again to keep living people alive.  And you think you or any man should have the right to tell me I should bare a child, which risks my life?  Bull fucking shit.  And decent men, who see women go through that become pro-choice (or more so) as my husband did.  He saw the pain I went through and when I was sent into surgery because of complications he sat there going "no woman should ever be forced to do this against her will".  Actually do some good and give blood, marrow and parts of your organs before you think to demand it of me.

[Gin1984]

I don't even understand what the point (or benefit) of this argument is.

It explains why women, and men who think we are competent adults should not vote conservative, because it means women giving up rights to her own body.