Liberal or Conservative?

[onlykelsey]

Many married men I've seen tend to develop saggy breasts and extra stomach.

Haha I imagine that's more of an "age"/lifestyle thing than a relationship status thing, no? 

I won't be satisfied until my husband has a torn perineum from childbirth.  Fair is fair.

[GuitarStv]

Many married men I've seen tend to develop saggy breasts and extra stomach.

Haha I imagine that's more of an "age"/lifestyle thing than a relationship status thing, no? 

I won't be satisfied until my husband has a torn perineum from childbirth.  Fair is fair.

Just get him into cycling.  Six hours on a chipseal road on 25 mm tires and a hard saddle is comparable.

[onlykelsey]

Just get him into cycling.  Six hours on a chipseal road on 25 mm tires and a hard saddle is comparable.

Funnily, we decided to embark on a ten-day bike tour for our honeymoon.  It turns out sunburn + borrowed bikes + long days biking do not make for sexy honeymoon nights.  On the second to last day I pitched a fit and rented a car.  Best $200 I've spent.

[GuitarStv]

Just get him into cycling.  Six hours on a chipseal road on 25 mm tires and a hard saddle is comparable.

Funnily, we decided to embark on a ten-day bike tour for our honeymoon.  It turns out sunburn + borrowed bikes + long days biking do not make for sexy honeymoon nights.  On the second to last day I pitched a fit and rented a car.  Best $200 I've spent.

You know it's true love when you share chamois cream.  :P

[onlykelsey]

You know it's true love when you share chamois cream.  :P

DH went all out and added to the attraction by catapulting over his own handle bars, and caught himself with his beard and the outside of his wrists.  Why?  He was looking at the mountains and rode in to a ditch.

Of course I made him politely asked him to carry all but 20 oz of my water for me and also let him patch my tube for me (which I know damn well how to do), so I suppose chivalry is not dead.

[yuka]

I trust that all the abortion commenters were just waiting intently for that other thread I offered. So, sorry for the delay: please relocate yourselves accordingly, that the original discussion may continue unmolested.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/

[dramaman]

And you keep ignoring that women, unlike men, are stuck with the physical impact of pregnancy.

Yes, I am, because THAT'S WHAT FEMINISM MEANS! You don't want women to be treated differently because of their biology? Then don't treat them differently!

That women, unlike men, cannot just skip town when they want to escape the consequences of their actions. That women, unlike men, cannot impregnate three different men in the same night. That your idea of 'fairness' would require women to not only have to bear the physical, psychological and medical burden of pregnancy but also the logistical and financial burden of hiring a lawyer to make sure the guy's feet are held to the fire DURING THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE PREGNANCY and which even if done can still be fought over in court by some sleazebag who later wants avoid being responsible. You are essentially laying out a situation in which a poor and/or young woman is incentivized to get an abortion rather than deal with all the hassles that you seem to think needed for the 'poor' guy to be 'fair'.

Sexist, all of it!

Apparently you think men are unfeeling beasts who never face the "psychological burden" of wanting to care for their child but not having the means to do so. Apparently only men can be "sleazebags," while all women are angels of unimpeachable character simply by virtue of their genitalia. Apparently you think women are so helpless that it's unreasonable for one to handle the tiniest responsibility of simply telling the father that the baby exists. Apparently you think it's impossible for men to be young and poor too.

In reponse to the good folks on this thread, I replied here - http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/msg945073/#msg945073

[browneyedgirl]

I think trying to separate abortion from politics (both in real life and in this conversation) is problematic. I think they're too linked to take them apart.

[yuka]

I think trying to separate abortion from politics (both in real life and in this conversation) is problematic. I think they're too linked to take them apart.

My problem is the loss of civility that abortion as an issue brings to the discussion. With a few exceptions where someone felt that 'asshole' and the like were synonyms with 'disagrees with me', everything was going quite well until abortion showed up.

The problem seems to be that there's no good starting point where we can all agree 'A = A' and move forward. There's an organism of questionable perception and brain function, but which is definitely human. Does that organism have natural rights? Can one not-yet-person impose its rights on a fully-formed person? Should we be killing human things with impunity?

Also, people approach the problem from such different fundamental issues. Battling Kantian vs. non-Kantian would be fun. Hashing out whether certain natural rights trump others is interesting. Arguing for or against government participation in the whole issue is very much in the spirit of this thread, even!  But with abortion, as often as not, the arguments turn into things like Kantian vs government non-intervention that are on separate planes.

Having accidentally ranted on the nature of abortion debates, I'll try to get back to the topic at hand..

[yuka]

Has anyone felt like they've been seeing more of Rand Paul recently? It seems like he's been doing an excellent job of getting on news interviews and other TV slots.

It seems like everyone's using him as a color commentator, because he'll lash out in all directions and he says some things you don't hear much.

[Jack]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

[Kris]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

*shrug* Sure, I'm fine with it.

But don't you think it's kind of a moot point, these days? Bringing back the draft seems like such a political non starter in the current climate. We've just moved too far away from that.  The general public would freak the fuck out at the idea that their children could get drafted, and the politicians know it.

[onlykelsey]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

*shrug* Sure, I'm fine with it.

But don't you think it's kind of a moot point, these days? Bringing back the draft seems like such a political non starter in the current climate. We've just moved too far away from that.  The general public would freak the fuck out at the idea that their children could get drafted, and the politicians know it.

I'm all about some sort of civil service a la Germany for able-bodied adults.  You could meet the requirements via military service or (in peace time) in whatever other way we decide (working in a retirement home or underserved school, public works projects, etc).

[GuitarStv]

With current US obesity rates, how many useful recruits would even be drafted?

[Gin1984]

I think trying to separate abortion from politics (both in real life and in this conversation) is problematic. I think they're too linked to take them apart.

My problem is the loss of civility that abortion as an issue brings to the discussion. With a few exceptions where someone felt that 'asshole' and the like were synonyms with 'disagrees with me', everything was going quite well until abortion showed up.

The problem seems to be that there's no good starting point where we can all agree 'A = A' and move forward. There's an organism of questionable perception and brain function, but which is definitely human. Does that organism have natural rights? Can one not-yet-person impose its rights on a fully-formed person? Should we be killing human things with impunity?

Also, people approach the problem from such different fundamental issues. Battling Kantian vs. non-Kantian would be fun. Hashing out whether certain natural rights trump others is interesting. Arguing for or against government participation in the whole issue is very much in the spirit of this thread, even!  But with abortion, as often as not, the arguments turn into things like Kantian vs government non-intervention that are on separate planes.

Having accidentally ranted on the nature of abortion debates, I'll try to get back to the topic at hand..

We have already decided, for all others besides pregnant women, that NO, you may not use another's body parts without consent even if the person will die.  Even if the person who you want to get those parts from is already dead, you may not without consent.  So we are treating pregnant women with less rights than a corpse and fetuses with more rights than fully autonomous, living human beings.

[Jack]

But don't you think it's kind of a moot point, these days?

Practically speaking, sure. But as a matter of principle? No, because the current policy is sexist. Either get rid of it completely or require it of everyone (I don't really care which); but stop requiring it of one gender but not the other.

[onlykelsey]

FYI Germany has 'suspended' both military service and civil service in it's stead. I doubt they will be able to un-suspend it in peace time ever again.

Oh, wow! I didn't know that. I remember there being talk in 2009 or 2010 about suspending it... I went to high school in Germany in the 2000s and it was still active.

I always thought that some JFK-style civil service was a good idea (for both sexes), although two years of military service seems a bit high.  I think even a 6-month full-time stint would be good for most people.

[andy85]

Regardless of whether or not the supreme court ok'd the draft, i stand by the claim it is entirely unconstitutional. In what free society does a government require military servitude of all of their citizens!?

13th Amendment
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[onlykelsey]

Regardless of whether or not the supreme court ok'd the draft, i stand by the claim it is entirely unconstitutional. In what free society does a government require military servitude of all of their citizens!?

13th Amendment
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Hmm.  I understand opposition to military service on religious/conscientious, but can't find much to oppose the draft, generally.  Art. 1 Sec. 8 was there when they drafted the 13th amendment, and they didn't touch it.

Ultimately, it's all sort of moot until someone brings a high profile enough case up to the Supreme Court and you find a Supreme Court willing to take it on.  I don't see the current court doing that.  There's not even a circuit split on the matter that they need to resolve, unless I'm missing something.

I agree that for a non-military draft (a more Zivildienst-style operation) we'd probably need to think about whether it could be mandated, but there is no question in my mind that the federal government could make it very fiscally lucrative enough (via 26 USC and the regs) to incentivize pretty widespread service.

[Kris]

But don't you think it's kind of a moot point, these days?

Practically speaking, sure. But as a matter of principle? No, because the current policy is sexist. Either get rid of it completely or require it of everyone (I don't really care which); but stop requiring it of one gender but not the other.

Yeah, like I said.  I agree. Especially now that women are allowed in combat roles.

[gaja]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

We have this. The feminists from the far left started the battle, ganged up with the liberals, and got the conservative feminists to force the prime minister to agree in june 2014.

We have one year mandatory service, either in the military or for an approved NGO. Usually you are sent to the far north to guard against the russians and freeze your but off.

[dramaman]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

Actually there is some thought that the Supreme Court exempting women from the Selective Service has been weakened because it relied upon the fact that women were not allowed in combat positions which is no longer true. Personally I don't see any reason why women shouldn't. I agree with Kris that it is kind of a moot point given that the chance of an actual draft taking place is rather small. Hell, if we can't get Congress to formally declare war, there is no way they are going to reinstitute the draft.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/07/pentagon-opening-combat-jobs-to-women-alters-factual-backdrop-in-keeping-them-out-of-the-draft/

[onlykelsey]

We have this. The feminists from the far left started the battle, ganged up with the liberals, and got the conservative feminists to force the prime minister to agree in june 2014.

We have one year mandatory service, either in the military or for an approved NGO. Usually you are sent to the far north to guard against the russians and freeze your but off.

From context clues, I assume you're Finnish, and not North Korean.... I didn't know that, I'll have to read up on it.

[gaja]

We have this. The feminists from the far left started the battle, ganged up with the liberals, and got the conservative feminists to force the prime minister to agree in june 2014.

We have one year mandatory service, either in the military or for an approved NGO. Usually you are sent to the far north to guard against the russians and freeze your but off.

From context clues, I assume you're Finnish, and not North Korean.... I didn't know that, I'll have to read up on it.

Norway. As far as I know,finnish women have a choice, while men have mandatory duty.

I think Israel has two years mandatory for both women and men?

[astvilla]

No neutral/independent option? Maybe just practical centrist.

I'm more objective and fact-based.  It'd be nice to have supercomputers make all the decisions than special interests or people making decisions. People distort, exaggerate, and downplay way too much it's hard to make an informed choice when all the info is inaccurate and the truth is really hard to find (despite everyone claiming to have the truth).

I probably lean more liberal though on social issues and conservative here and there.

There's prob a lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative cause this is a Mustachian forum after all.  We want the whole country and everyone else to obey our fiscal principles whether they like it or not!

I'm embarrassed by elements on both sides, so I don't identify w/either, they seem too worked up and emotional trying to fix other people's behavior. I think there's argument for both though. 

[Jack]

It'd be nice to have supercomputers make all the decisions than special interests or people making decisions.

Then you'd just end up with a bias towards the special interests of supercomputer programmers.

[dramaman]

If you put a supercomputer in charge, just don't name it SKYNET.

[davisgang90]

If you put a supercomputer in charge, just don't name it SKYNET.

Or the WOPR.

[fitfrugalfab]

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Sorry none of the above really captures that so I didn't vote.

Same

[Bateaux]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

[mm1970]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

I totally agree with you

[pbkmaine]

So, anybody want to touch the argument I made that women should be equally required to register for the draft?

I totally agree with you

Me, too.

[2Cent]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

[Gin1984]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

Example of such groups: Red pill, MRAs, anti-choice groups.  So yes.

[2Cent]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

Example of such groups: Red pill, MRAs, anti-choice groups.  So yes.

Anti-choice groups. Are you even hearing yourself?
Lets turn it around. Maybe then you get it. What would you think if someone is talking about anti-life groups. Would you take that person serious?

[Gin1984]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

Example of such groups: Red pill, MRAs, anti-choice groups.  So yes.

Anti-choice groups. Are you even hearing yourself?
Lets turn it around. Maybe then you get it. What would you think if someone is talking about anti-life groups. Would you take that person serious?

To quote Sister Joan Chittister ""I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.""  Pretending that passing laws that kill women, is pro-life is inane. 

[Jack]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

Example of such groups: Red pill, MRAs, anti-choice groups.  So yes.

Anti-choice groups. Are you even hearing yourself?
Lets turn it around. Maybe then you get it. What would you think if someone is talking about anti-life groups. Would you take that person serious?

To quote Sister Joan Chittister ""I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.""  Pretending that passing laws that kill women, is pro-life is inane.

Your reply is a complete non-sequitur. 2cent's point was that your choice of terminology was itself inflammatory and prejudiced, not... whatever it is you think you were responding to.

Neither "anti-choice groups" nor a "war on women" exist except as caricatures. Both of those terms are derogatory epithets designed to demonize the opposition -- i.e., exactly the sort of of "hyperbolic PR language" Bateauxdriver was complaining about.

[biocmp]

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Sorry none of the above really captures that so I didn't vote.

Me too.  I've always said I'd vote Republican if I could find a pro-choicer.  I'm told they exist.

Ha ha, I'm apparently the polar opposite. I've longed for a democrat who was pro-life because they'd be the most consistent on that platform.  Most of their positions would show their dedication to human life, from conception to death.  The true humanist politician...

It'll probably never happen but I'll continue hoping.

I guess while I'm throwing coins in the pond, I'd like to see them also support tax incentives to localize most businesses, reduce monopolies, promote city infrastructure that reduces the need for vehicles, promote reduced-tuition for education and fight to lower healthcare costs and increase accessibility.  Working to legalize marijuana would be another step in the right direction.

I'm just a stranger in a strange land, my combination of positions are probably held by less than 5% of the voting population.

[Gin1984]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

War on women? Really? That is such hyperbolic PR language. Or do you really think there are men's organisations working for the purpose of repressing women?

Example of such groups: Red pill, MRAs, anti-choice groups.  So yes.

Anti-choice groups. Are you even hearing yourself?
Lets turn it around. Maybe then you get it. What would you think if someone is talking about anti-life groups. Would you take that person serious?

To quote Sister Joan Chittister ""I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.""  Pretending that passing laws that kill women, is pro-life is inane.

Your reply is a complete non-sequitur. 2cent's point was that your choice of terminology was itself inflammatory and prejudiced, not... whatever it is you think you were responding to.

Neither "anti-choice groups" nor a "war on women" exist except as caricatures. Both of those terms are derogatory epithets designed to demonize the opposition -- i.e., exactly the sort of of "hyperbolic PR language" Bateauxdriver was complaining about.

No, it is not.  It is to explain why one would not decide to use pro-life for a group that is specifically only working for women's lack of choice.  They are not working for the life of child, for the women who will die without access to an abortion etc.  It is not inflammatory to not pretend they are working for life.

[onlykelsey]

No, it is not.  It is to explain why one would not decide to use pro-life for a group that is specifically only working for women's lack of choice.  They are not working for the life of child, for the women who will die without access to an abortion etc.  It is not inflammatory to not pretend they are working for life.

I'm personally to the right of most democrats on abortions, but am unwilling to support further limits on access to abortion until we take a whole bunch of other obvious steps to minimize abortions.  Like sex education and easy contraception access and maternity leave.  Pretending that access to abortions is the only pressure point we have control over is disingenuous. If we really wanted to  minimize abortions, which I think is a fair governmental interest, we'd be doing all sorts of other things.  Clearly there is something else at play, and I agree that part of it is a desire to control women and their sexuality.

[Jack]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

[Kris]

No, it is not.  It is to explain why one would not decide to use pro-life for a group that is specifically only working for women's lack of choice.  They are not working for the life of child, for the women who will die without access to an abortion etc.  It is not inflammatory to not pretend they are working for life.

I'm personally to the right of most democrats on abortions, but am unwilling to support further limits on access to abortion until we take a whole bunch of other obvious steps to minimize abortions.  Like sex education and easy contraception access and maternity leave.  Pretending that access to abortions is the only pressure point we have control over is disingenuous. If we really wanted to  minimize abortions, which I think is a fair governmental interest, we'd be doing all sorts of other things.  Clearly there is something else at play, and I agree that part of it is a desire to control women and their sexuality.

This is where I stand, as well, except that I do want to roll back many of the restrictions on abortion, precisely for the reasons you state.  I agree with you that there is something else at play: namely, that this issue is being used by the right-wing political elite to inflame their voting base.  If they really cared about minimizing abortions, all of these things would be on their agendas.

[Gin1984]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

I never said they hate women, I said they are opposed to choice for women and want to control their choice.  I did not give them a motive they have not shown/said themselves.  Passing laws to require a vaginal ultrasound so it will cost more and be more invasive, with no medical reason, what motive is there?  Or, requiring MDs to lie to their patients, how about that motive?  Or shutting down clinics via TRAP laws or by making up videos (planned parenthood) so women do not have access to abortions even if this means losing ALL medical care access.
None of that can be done and then claimed to be pro-life.  All it is, is controlling women (and harming them in the process).  If you don't like that being stated plainly, too bad.  I don't like that women are dying because of these people. 

[TheNick]

Wow.  If I ever had a doubt about supporting Bernie, TheNick just solidified it.
I'm a middle class white guy but I'm sick and disgusted by the war on women.

I'm far more concerned about the war on fathers than the war on women...as demonstrated by a few women on here who think the only right a father should have is the right to pay child support.

[Cressida]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

uh-huh. Of course a handful of cells might take priority over a breathing adult female. By all means we should have a rational discussion about this.

[TheNick]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

uh-huh. Of course a handful of cells might take priority over a breathing adult female. By all means we should have a rational discussion about this.

Its kind of funny how you act like a healthy female carrying a healthy fetus is some sort of death sentence.  Oh god...that poor woman that has the same "condition" billions of women before her have had, some multiple times, but...evil fathers that don't want their child to die must want that woman dead because fathers are oppressive bastards!

[Cressida]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

uh-huh. Of course a handful of cells might take priority over a breathing adult female. By all means we should have a rational discussion about this.

Its kind of funny how you act like a healthy female carrying a healthy fetus is some sort of death sentence.  Oh god...that poor woman that has the same "condition" billions of women before her have had, some multiple times, but...evil fathers that don't want their child to die must want that woman dead because fathers are oppressive bastards!

You really are super anxious about this topic. Are you going around fathering unwanted children all over the place? If so, you might want to consider restricting your sexual activity to women who are on the same page as you. Because then this wouldn't be an issue. I mean, if this is such a hot topic in your household, surely you have the wherewithal to choose your objects of insemination.

[2Cent]

Your reply is a complete non-sequitur. 2cent's point was that your choice of terminology was itself inflammatory and prejudiced, not... whatever it is you think you were responding to.

Neither "anti-choice groups" nor a "war on women" exist except as caricatures. Both of those terms are derogatory epithets designed to demonize the opposition -- i.e., exactly the sort of of "hyperbolic PR language" Bateauxdriver was complaining about.

Exactly.
Sorry for derailing the thread again, but this is exactly the what makes it so hard to have an honest discussion about any political topic. Both sides are trying to vilify the other and want to discuss caricatures of the other's ideas because that makes their position sound better to their followers.

I would really like to see someone who can understand both sides of the argument and make a reasonable decision get some media attention. Anyway, I suspect most if not all candidates are actually fully aware of the complexities of the truth, but they choose to exaggerate certain topics to get media attention.

[TheNick]

You really are super anxious about this topic. Are you going around fathering unwanted children all over the place? If so, you might want to consider restricting your sexual activity to women who are on the same page as you. Because then this wouldn't be an issue. I mean, if this is such a hot topic in your household, surely you have the wherewithal to choose your objects of insemination.

If I was fathering unwanted children all over the place why would I care if they were all aborted?

Funny though...how you fall right back to that same double standard lol.  If unwanted pregnancies are an issue with me I should restrict my sexual activity...but if someone tells a woman to keep her legs closed if she isn't ready to be a mother...so bad...don't say that...that's slut shaming!

Why are you so anxious about fathers having more rights than just the "right" to pay child support?

[dramaman]

They are not working for the life of child

Of course not; they're working for the life of the fetus -- at which point we can have a rational discussion about (a) if such a thing exists independently of the mother in the first place and (b) if so, whether its safety and/or rights are worth prioritizing above the mother's safety and/or rights.

To disregard that and instead argue only that "they hate women" is not only factually wrong, but bigoted on your part.

To be clear: maybe some anti-abortion people do have misogynist motives, but attempting to assign that motive to all of them is where you go wrong.

uh-huh. Of course a handful of cells might take priority over a breathing adult female. By all means we should have a rational discussion about this.

Its kind of funny how you act like a healthy female carrying a healthy fetus is some sort of death sentence.  Oh god...that poor woman that has the same "condition" billions of women before her have had, some multiple times,

You might want to study up before making such a ridiculous callous statement.

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

It was even worse years ago. Death during childbirth was extremely common. It was not uncommon for pioneer men to marry multiple times as their wives died from childbirth. Things have gotten better, but pregnancy is still no walk in the park. Even in the U.S., the lifetime risk of maternal death from pregnancy-related causes is estimated as being no less than 1 in 7,800. Canada and some countries in Europe have even lower risk. On the other hand, in some countries in Africa, the risk is 1 in 16.

Personal anecdote. My own wife suffered complications with multiple pregnancies. With one miscarriage, she needed a D&C, which is effectively equivalent to an abortion. With her last pregnancy, it took a LOT of medical intervention before she and our new daughter were fine. I shudder to think what might have happened otherwise. I don't begrudge any woman who is concerned about the risk of pregnancy.

but...evil fathers some ignorant men that don't want their child any fetus to die must want that woman dead don't much care for the welfare of the woman because fathers those men are oppressive bastards!

Not quite, but I was able to fix that for you. :)