Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 373476 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1250 on: January 23, 2017, 02:54:59 PM »
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for womenís reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isnít strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trumpís executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.

jeninco

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1251 on: January 23, 2017, 03:04:20 PM »
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for womenís reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isnít strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trumpís executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.

OK, I'm genuinely curious (and I have a one-topic-per-day policy for calling my representatives): if this is a presidential decree, what can my representatives do about it?  If there's some constructive purpose in calling, I'll send out a group email, but this one feels like spitting into a tsunami.
(And, to be clear, this kind of BS completely infuriates me. It disproportionately hurts poor women and children in poor countries and accomplishes no good whatsoever.)

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1252 on: January 23, 2017, 03:11:11 PM »
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for womenís reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isnít strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trumpís executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1253 on: January 23, 2017, 03:13:20 PM »
Can anyone point to data about how whether this is rescinded/not rescinded actually affects outcomes? I spent a while googling for it, and found no data either way. Even the pro-choice groups who are against this just insist that it's bad...  seems like we should have that data, since the bit has been flipped Reagan+bush/Clinton/bush/Obama. This data would help make a case to a legislator to support rescinding the rule.

I'm wondering if this is one of those things where the rule doesn't really affect anything because they just shift dollars around and do the same thing. Lets hope, anyway.  If it does actually affect outcomes, the data should show it. If there is no change, that speaks for its self.

*I am pro-"not the gov'ts place to ban abortion, but think some discussion about whether the government directly funds it is warranted" so if you want to paint with a brush, you can pre-emptively fuck off.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 03:25:47 PM by ncornilsen »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1254 on: January 23, 2017, 03:15:58 PM »
Quote
OK, I'm genuinely curious (and I have a one-topic-per-day policy for calling my representatives): if this is a presidential decree, what can my representatives do about it?  If there's some constructive purpose in calling, I'll send out a group email, but this one feels like spitting into a tsunami.
(And, to be clear, this kind of BS completely infuriates me. It disproportionately hurts poor women and children in poor countries and accomplishes no good whatsoever.)

there is nothing that your congress person can do directly. They can put political pressure by telling the WH they wont' support future/current bills if he does things like that. If your congress person leads any sub-committees (which is very likely) he/she can have a large influence about which bills make it to the floor and when.
Ultimately the WH needs votes in congress (especially with it being so closely divided), and your representatives are always going to do what they think it best to stay in power and get relected. Having worked as a congressional page many years ago I'll say that congress members do listen when their constituents complain, in part because so few actually take the time.

But I agree at times it feels like spitting into a tsunami.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1255 on: January 23, 2017, 03:45:13 PM »
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for womenís reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isnít strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trumpís executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1256 on: January 23, 2017, 03:55:05 PM »
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't want women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that it keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect, to this crowd.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 04:36:27 PM by sol »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1257 on: January 23, 2017, 04:01:24 PM »
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for womenís reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isnít strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trumpís executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

The Helms amendment states simply "no foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."

I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1258 on: January 23, 2017, 04:03:21 PM »
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

While the catholic church opposes birth control as a policy, many Christians (and many catholics) are quite all right with family planning and birth control while being pro-life.

I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1259 on: January 23, 2017, 04:09:52 PM »
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that it keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect, to this crowd.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

Yeah, I understand that. But when I talk to pro-life people, their main argument is that abortion is MURDER. Well, okay, if you don't want MURDER, then you want fewer abortions. So... make decisions that will make that possible. Anything else seems at the very least hypocritical.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1260 on: January 23, 2017, 04:10:42 PM »
I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?

Not the Helms amendment, which has been in continuing effect, but the new Trump order reinstating the Mexico City policy.  It specifically withholds funding to NGOs that offer contraception in developing nations.  Why is this at all confusing?

I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 

Sure, but this was specifically in response to a poster who claimed to support the decision to defund contraception services because they were also pro-life.  I was just trying to explain how a person could hold those two seemingly contradictory views.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 04:14:35 PM by sol »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1261 on: January 23, 2017, 04:14:21 PM »


I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 

Sure, but this was specifically in response to a poster who claimed to support the decision to defund contraception services because they were also pro-life.  I was just trying to explain how a person could hold those two seemingly contradictory views.

Thanks for the clarification.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 04:16:58 PM by Midwest »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1262 on: January 23, 2017, 04:26:11 PM »
I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?

Not the Helms amendment, which has been in continuing effect, but the new Trump order reinstating the Mexico City policy.  It specifically withholds funding to NGOs that offer contraception in developing nations.  Why is this at all confusing?


I'm clear now. I had glossed over the fact that the Mexico city policy was a separate thing entirely. 

edit: Now that I'm searching for the right thing...

 the jury is out on whether the Mexico city rule has any effect at all, according to these guys:
http://www.aei.org/publication/mexico-city-policy/print/  This one says the Mexico city has no effect either way.

WHO Says enacting the Mexico city rule actually causes more abortions. There are some questions you could raise as to methodology the WHO used, relying on people recalling things over spans of times etc, but... the data seems to respond significantly to the change in policy. They don't speculate too much on why this paradox exists, but it's probably because of the reduction in access to other contraceptives caused by stopping funding due to the MCr.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

WHO conclusion: if you want to prevent abortions, well, uh, fund abortions.

So, I guess my policy leans toward we should infact KEEP the helms rule, but eliminate the mexico city rule. this scheme seems to maintain good outcomes without directly funding abortions.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 04:48:56 PM by ncornilsen »

Burghardt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1263 on: January 23, 2017, 05:46:20 PM »
I suppose the most significant impact is everybody continuously shooting themselves in the foot until they run out of space and have to pick a new body part.

Everybody's being lead around on a leash arguing about crowd sizes and abortions in other countries while the big political moves are barely reported on.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1264 on: January 23, 2017, 06:25:19 PM »
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1265 on: January 23, 2017, 06:31:00 PM »
WHO conclusion: if you want to prevent abortions, well, uh, fund abortions.

More specifically, I think the conclusion is "if you want to prevent abortions, fund effective contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies."

Unfortunately, Trump is trying to appeal to the pro-life people by reinstating the Mexico City policy, which prevents contraception and thus increases abortion.  I'm not sure if he's just confused about the impacts, or doesn't care, or what.  I doubt it's because he's actually trying to cause more abortions, because NOBODY wants that.  Even the most strongly pro-choice among us would like to see abortions be less common.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1266 on: January 23, 2017, 07:03:53 PM »
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 36
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1267 on: January 23, 2017, 07:18:31 PM »
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W

You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1268 on: January 23, 2017, 07:20:16 PM »
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W

You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.

No doubt. And the war on drugs. And for profit prisons. And border protections that drive illegal immigrants into increasingly dangerous situations and terrain. Damn, I guess I'm pro-life too!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1269 on: January 23, 2017, 07:40:19 PM »
I suppose the most significant impact is everybody continuously shooting themselves in the foot until they run out of space and have to pick a new body part.

Everybody's being lead around on a leash arguing about crowd sizes and abortions in other countries while the big political moves are barely reported on.

He is a master of the dead cat technique.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1270 on: January 23, 2017, 08:31:48 PM »
You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.

Darn it, you got me!

It's almost like I'm a Christian...

-W

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1271 on: January 23, 2017, 08:43:08 PM »
Did anybody mention this?

Sayonara net neutrality.

What a busy little bee he is!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1272 on: January 24, 2017, 06:01:06 AM »
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1273 on: January 24, 2017, 07:11:25 AM »

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?
[/quote]
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1274 on: January 24, 2017, 07:19:13 AM »
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

That's great for you. When your archaic notions start interfering with my (marital) sex life (say, banning IUDs), you can go fuck yourself right off a cliff.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1275 on: January 24, 2017, 07:22:37 AM »

I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.
we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't see what is immoral or unethical about two consenting adults deciding to have sex while also deciding they don't want a pregnancy right now. To me that's the heart of sound family planning.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11345
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1276 on: January 24, 2017, 07:38:43 AM »
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

- If a man ejaculates into a condom, the sperm will eventually die.

- If a man fails to ejaculate into a condom, his sperm will be reabsorbed into his body and die.

Where is the moral/ethical difference coming from?




- If a woman takes hormal birth control, it prevents ovulation.  The ovum is simply never released.

- If a woman fails to take hormonal birth control, she will ovulate every month and the ovum will die.

If your objection to abortion is that it kills a living thing, then you should have an objection to women who fail to take hormonal birth control.  They kill a living thing every month that they are not inseminated.  Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1277 on: January 24, 2017, 07:45:45 AM »
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!
Trump was on about winning the popular vote again just yesterday.  I would be relieved if it was part of some master strategy, but sadly I just think he is just 100% coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1278 on: January 24, 2017, 08:05:07 AM »
I have been on both sides of the abortion debate and over time I have come to some conclusions. 

Many pro-lifers WANT to believe that abortion is murder, and they WANT to view their opponents as murderers because it makes them feel good about themselves without doing anything.  Righteous anger feels awesome.  If you believe your opponent is a murderer, it gives you a sense of the moral high ground, and makes it easy to dismiss any arguments or suggestions.  After all, why would you listen to a murderer about anything they have to say? 

The converse is, many pro-choicers WANT to believe that anyone who opposes abortion is trying to chain women back into the stone age.  They WANT to frame pro-lifers as evil people who hate women, want to control their bodies entirely, and want to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality. 

Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people. 

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1279 on: January 24, 2017, 08:07:53 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1280 on: January 24, 2017, 08:09:34 AM »
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1281 on: January 24, 2017, 08:10:51 AM »
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!
Trump was on about winning the popular vote again just yesterday.  I would be relieved if it was part of some master strategy, but sadly I just think he is just 100% coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

I keep going back and forth on this one (and I have been for well over a year).

I just cannot decide which is worse: a Commander in Chief who is so thin skinned that he'll flip out when people rightfully note that his crowd sizes weren't "the biggest in history"...
OR... a President who intentionally lies about crazy stuff just to keep the media focused on him and the lie.

Either way it's bad.

SomedayStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • Live Long and Prosper
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1282 on: January 24, 2017, 08:14:00 AM »
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

Could you please spell this out for me as if I am a second grader?  With this specific topic (not one of the examples in the linked definitions page)

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3305
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1283 on: January 24, 2017, 08:17:07 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.
I hope you will allow your kids access to information on contraception and allow them to form their own views on its use.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1284 on: January 24, 2017, 08:17:50 AM »
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I fail to see how it is a post-hoc fallacy. If you're speaking strictly about abortion, and whether prohibiting it causes more, that's one thing (and there's lots of evidence showing there is a causual relationship).
But you appear to be saying using any birth control besides is immoral and unethical. That doesn't fly. There's a pretty convincing link between having unprotected sex and the probability of pregnancy. Ergo, enacting this view would lead to either lots of people not having sex that they want to have, or preganancies they didn't intend to happen.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1285 on: January 24, 2017, 08:19:21 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct? 

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1286 on: January 24, 2017, 08:23:07 AM »
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.

See how ridiculous that gets?

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm more pro-life than you are by any reasonable standard.

-W

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1287 on: January 24, 2017, 08:26:57 AM »
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

Carlin

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1288 on: January 24, 2017, 08:31:29 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct?

Correct...I grew up with this ideology.  The idea is that if you're having sex just for the pleasure, even if it's with your spouse, you are taking advantage of "god's gift."  It's kind of like saying drinking diet soda is a sin.  You want the yumminess, but not the fat inducing sugar, so you find a way around it (aspartame, condoms).  That pisses the big guy off.  There must be retribution for pleasure.  Always.

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1289 on: January 24, 2017, 08:32:22 AM »
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm not a Trump fan but this isn't as sinister as it sounds. All presidents name their inauguration day  - Obama's was something like "National Day of Reconciliation" or something similar.

Patriotic Devotion is totally creepy though.

t5inside

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Hillsboro, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1290 on: January 24, 2017, 08:37:52 AM »
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm by no means a Trump fan but have a hard time making a big deal of this : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/what-does-trumps-day-of-patriotic-devotion-really-mean/514196/

"That bit isnít all that unusual. Presidents christen National Days Of Things all the time. President Barack Obama, for example, proclaimed the day of his own inauguration in 2009 a ďNational Day of Renewal and Reconciliation,Ē


"The last president to declare a Day of Patriotic Devotion was Woodrow Wilson"
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 08:43:35 AM by t5inside »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1291 on: January 24, 2017, 08:38:26 AM »
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.


I'm not speaking for Acroy, but how does disagreeing with contraception impact other's bodies?  Has Acroy argued for banning contraception?

I don't agree with his viewpoint, but he is free to do as he wishes.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1292 on: January 24, 2017, 08:41:11 AM »
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm not a Trump fan but this isn't as sinister as it sounds. All presidents name their inauguration day  - Obama's was something like "National Day of Reconciliation" or something similar.

Patriotic Devotion is totally creepy though.

Huh.  Looked it up and Obama declared his first inauguration day (Jan 20th 2009) as the "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation.  I'm not a fan of retroactively declaring inauguration days "National Day(s)" regardless of the president.

Agree that "patriotic devotion" is creepy.  Lots of wars have been fought over patriotism/nationalism and over devotion.  I can't think of a war that was fought over reconciliation though.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1293 on: January 24, 2017, 08:44:12 AM »
To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct?
Correct. The definition of contraception = prevent conception (no life)..
Abortifactants, even if called 'contraceptives', cause abortion (end life).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11345
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1294 on: January 24, 2017, 08:45:32 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1295 on: January 24, 2017, 09:03:06 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

Ahh you beat me to it.

Don't forget "god" also intended for us to procreate as much as possible so abstaining from sex is against god's will.  "Go forth and multiply" and all that garbage. I think the circular reasoning list is endless. I kind of laughed when I read the list to be honest.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1296 on: January 24, 2017, 09:03:37 AM »
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1297 on: January 24, 2017, 09:09:42 AM »
What's your position on climate change? That's IMO the greatest possible threat to human life, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that it's actually happening.

How about the death penalty?

Pro life means stepping up for all people, not just unborn ones.

-W

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1298 on: January 24, 2017, 09:13:46 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1
The rest follows from reason.
Sheez, I'm continually accused of wanting to control others. Not so. I hope you exercise your own free will to make moral choices.
Ovum is not a person.
God 'meant us to....have consequence free sex'? You made me smile, thanks.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1299 on: January 24, 2017, 09:17:10 AM »
...oh what the hell... Two points:
1) if God had intended sex to be primarily about procreation, the fertilization rate would reflect this. Plenty of animals (mammals even!) have fertilization success that exceeds 50%.
Likewise, God could have made it far less complicated, as with other species.
It seems clear to me that sex serves a social function first, and a procreation function second.


2) I do not consider termination of a newly fertilized zygote to be murder, regardless of whether it is alive.  Both un-fertilized eggs and sperm are definitely alive.  Many things can interfere with development, both naturally and unnaturally. In my view calling it 'murder' accomplishes nothing but frothing up the debate.

That said, my personal choice is to never have an abortion.