Out of Context

[DarkLink]

So the media and politicians are infamous for taking random quotes out of context and using them to demonize their opponent. This one struck me as particularly funny, for whatever reason.

After the last presidential debate, I read an article titled "Has Romney lost the women's vote" or something to that effect. This was on a major new source as well, BBC or CNN, I forget. It listed several quotes Romney made, such as "binders of women", with the implicit claim that Romeny acted sexist and anti-women, and that it would hurt his popularity.

Here's the full quote of what Romney actually said:


"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men," Romney said at the debate in answer to a question about equal pay for women. "And I went to my staff, and I said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are all men?' They said, 'Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well, gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified?'"

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/campaign-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

That sounds to me like the exact opposite of making a sexist comment. In fact, it sounds like someone explicitly taking the effort to not just avoid sexism, but ensure equal opportunity. I found it particularly funny that the out-of-context quote literally reversed its meaning.

Now, this isn't a comment on how sexist or nonsexist a politician is. I just find the lack of journalistic integrity pathetic.

[Sean_OBrien]

Do you expect anything different?

In the same segment, he goes on to explain his Chief of Staff (IIRC). When he offered her the job, she said that she would only be able to take it if she was able to ensure that she was able to take time off each day to go have dinner with her kid. He offered up that yes, that would work and he made sure that he was able to work with her request to ensure she could be home to cook dinner.

The media though is pushing the last half of the exchange as opposed to its entirety trying to make it look like Romney was making her go home and cook dinner as opposed to that being her desire as part of her terms of employment.

Even more than that - the media completely mischaracterizes what the actual Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does. It doesn't actually introduce anything that says fair pay is required under the law (those laws have been in place for over nearly 50 years). What it does it adjusts the range of time that complaints can be made allowing for violations that fall outside the statute of limitations for the various fair pay laws.

Many legal scholars who have evaluated the Ledbetter case in light of the new statute have agreed that she still would likely have lost her claim. As the appellate court stated in their findings, although the majority of her claim fell outside the statute of limitations...those which are within the 180 day limit could not be tied specifically to gender discrimination. In order to activate the extension within the Act the current pattern must be found to be discriminatory...which the court found it was not (granted that is in disagreement of the findings of the initial jury trial...but jury findings are often overturned because they fail to consider the actual law and are motivated by emotion).

Unfortunately, most of the current "journalists" are too busy tweeting to actually read up on things like what a bill actually does and even more of the voting population is more interested in reading up on the judges on American Idol or contestants on the Voice than actually finding out the specifics of laws which are being passed and what they actually do beyond just the fluffy title which is tossed about by the media and politicians.

[eldargal]

Those comments don't make him sexist. From what I've seen I wouldn't say he is particularly sexist. I still think he is a dangerous, moronic buffoon with a limited grasp on reality, but no more sexist than the average American male (who to be frank, in my experience, is rather less sexist than the average British male). As a Republican presidential candidates go I preferred McCain.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well, he isn't dangerous until he arms the nukes... Or runs America into the ground dictator-style...
If he does get in power, which I doubt, then it won't last long. He'll do something stupid and will be rebelled against.

Also, yey for not being an average British male.

[Sean_OBrien]

I still think he is a dangerous, moronic buffoon with a limited grasp on reality

I hear that often enough - but to be honest, I fail to actually see it. Granted, I might be blinded from the glare off my own Ivory Tower. ;)

I am curious though as to what specifically leads you to come to that conclusion? Most of his actions are painfully middle of the road to me, and although he is a highly religious person...his particular religion is not that threatening to outside individuals.

[eldargal]

Lots of little things really, from complaining about the security at our Olympics (the last act of terrorism at a modern Olympics was in the US, bear in mind and Britain has been dealing with terrorism for many decades longer than the US) to irresponsible defense spending promises, promises that the US will continue to let Israel sodomise them, his desire to ban abortion except in the case of rape and incest, believing Russia is the USAs main geopolitical rival, etc.

I should clarify when I say his dangerous I don't mean he is going to bring about WWIII or any hyperbolic nonsense like that. I just don't think he has what the US needs right now. I'm not sure Obama does either, and to be fair he has managed to be quite offensive towards Britain too. I don't have a problem with his personal beliefs even if I think they are silly myself, that's what freedom of religion is all about. I think some of his ideas would be detrimental to the USAs economic recovery (particularly his expressed wish to maintain high levels of military spending and increase the size of the military and particularlythe Navy, which would be extremely expensive), and with the EU economy being what it is we don't need any missteps from the US.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Yeah, he may insult the British, but we don't care. We're too damned awesome. :D

[DarkLink]

I find it funny whenever anyone labels Romney an extremest. Romney was such a moderate beforehand that he's dedicated a massive amount of effort into getting the Republican party to actually back him. Romney has historically supported government sponsored free healthcare, gun control (boo!), raising taxes on fuel inefficient vehicles, and various other things that you would typically associate with a Democrat. He's also had to sell himself hard to the Republican party, which is why we got comments like the 47%, and his sudden harsh turn on aspects of foreign policy.

And it's ironic to complain about the possibility of Romney turning America into a dictatorship while Obama is in office. If we're not a dictatorship after four years of Obama, I don't think we have to worry too much about Romney.

[eldargal]

I certainly don't think he is extremist, in fact he has the same problem McCain had, he had to pick an extremist running mate and that does put me off.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

It's not ironic, I'm British; to me Obama is amusing. He seems like a Chihuahua, it tries to be terrifying, but it's just ridiculous. :p

[Sean_OBrien]

If he does get in power, which I doubt

Actually, fairly likely based on the current trends...though it may well be possible that there is a surprise or three in the last few weeks that overturn the campaign.

Right now, Obama is below the 50% mark in the national polling which historically for incumbent candidates is a strong indicator that they will loose. Gallup actually has Romney up by 7 points over Obama which would indicate a landslide victory by modern standards:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

Even within the Electoral College the path for Romney is opening up and making Obama defend states which are traditionally Democrat leaning states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan for example have all been within the margin of error or leaning towards Romney in the past week of polling).

And if you like to worry about things which are largely unreasonable assumptions (don't think there is much chance of anyone engaging in open nuclear warfare...) there is a really good chance that the Republicans will pick up the Senate as well. Democrats currently have 16 seats which are at risk while Republicans have 4. In large part, the seats which are at risk for the Republicans are likely to fall back to them (Arizona, Nevada and Indiana...though they will likely loose their seat in Maine). However, the Democrat seats which are at risk are really at risk coming from largely Republican or generally conservative states (Nebraska, Missouri, Florida, North Dakota, Montana and Virginia). If the Republicans keep what they are expected to keep and pick up the ones which they are likely to pick up...they will have the majority. If they manage to pick up half of the remaining seats which are assumed to be toss ups the will have close to the filibuster proof majority.


complaining about the security at our Olympics

Think that was a lot to do about nothing honestly. He was echoing concerns which were also brought up by UK newspapers, and it was less about a complaint regarding the security or anything specific to the preparations and more a general statement about how Olympics games are handled. The exact quote (which surprisingly few people have actually heard) was:

“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting: the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.”

The line which seemed to get the most criticism was this one though, relating to how the people would actually feel once the games got started (as there was much British media attention on the Londoners who were complaining about how bad traffic would be impacted and what not):

“Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That’s something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.”

Neither statement is particularly harsh when viewed in context of the interview which they were made in (remember, they were responses to questions asked by Brian Williams - not spontaneous utterances).


his desire to ban abortion except in the case of rape and incest

That is sort of a hard one for me. Personally - I give two rats ***** one way or another. However, when you look at things within the context of the two opposing sides...I tend to side with those who are pro-life, or at least I see their fanatic position much more clearly. If you are pro-life, you likely view a fetus as a separate life so abortion would be killing that human, i.e. - Murder. I am strongly against murder. On the other side, you have the pro-choice who argue that a women should be able to choose what she does with her body...and I agree, however factually speaking the fetus is not a part of her body. It may be a parasite, but it has a separate genetic profile from the mother. It is not simply removing a tumor. That leads to a valid question of when the collection of cells becomes a human. Some of the extreme choice advocates claim it doesn't happen till self awareness...which based on a number of reports regarding child development doesn't actually happen till the kid is around 6 months old...well after birth. Most try to avoid the subject entirely though which is a dishonest approach to the debate.

I can't see getting fanatically behind a stance which is simply based on convenience regarding a bad choice (discounting the small portion which are actually performed as a result of rapes or the legitimate safety of the mother).

My other issue regarding abortion is the equal protection aspects related to it. In many states in the US - if someone were to run into a pregnant woman on her way to have an abortion performed while doing something like texting while driving or DWI...and the woman were to die, they would be charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter. If the law identifies a fetus as a human for the purpose of murder or manslaughter charges - it should also define it as a human and protect it from abortions. If they want to allow abortions - get rid of the laws that that identifies it as such. Either way, I don't care - however the inconsistency under the law indicates that it isn't nearly as straight forward as the pro-choice crowd would like to promote it.


promises that the US will continue to let Israel sodomise them

That has always well and good perplexed me. For the most part, I don't care about Israel. Don't care about the vast majority of the middle east for that matter. However, what we expend relating to Israel is minimal compared to overall expenses and even compared to specific other countries. The biggest thing which we do do is exercise our veto right within the UN on a regular basis - however considering the vast majority of the claims which are brought...I don't necessarily see that as out of order. The other actors in the region are far from having clean hands in the conflict - and although they could well and good have cleared out their problems decades ago by force, they have not.

I also am fairly well certain that the support of Israel is not the source of the extremists over there. There is a large chunk within the Muslim religion who believes that the whole world should be converted and they will do so by force if necessary. Israel is a nice lightning rod in the area which keeps them occupied...and in my own self serving interests that is a good thing.


believing Russia is the USAs main geopolitical rival

While they are not the main rival or concern...they are far from an friend in the international community. From weapons proliferation to internal political crack downs and past actions regarding shutting off supplies of natural gas during the middle of winter to force the hands of European neighbors - I wouldn't call them a friendly nation.

They are probably not the most important one - but they are definitely in the top two (if you take into account their ability to impact us and their desire to as opposed to simply their desire to...as some countries would be much happier to interfere with our concerns but are incapable of doing so to any significant extent).


I certainly don't think he is extremist, in fact he has the same problem McCain had, he had to pick an extremist running mate and that does put me off.

Ryan isn't an extremist...he is an accountant.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

TL;dr.

[Psychosplodge]

but no more sexist than the average American male (who to be frank, in my experience, is rather less sexist than the average British male)..

Well I do my best, now go make TDA a sandwich


I hear that often enough - but to be honest, I fail to actually see it. Granted, I might be blinded from the glare off my own Ivory Tower. ;)
They still let you build out of that in the US O_O

Lots of little things really, from complaining about the security at our Olympics (the last act of terrorism at a modern Olympics was in the US, bear in mind and Britain has been dealing with terrorism for many decades longer than the US, funded by US citizens...) to irresponsible defense spending promises, promises that the US will continue to let Israel sodomise them, his desire to ban abortion except in the case of rape and incest, believing Russia is the USAs main geopolitical rival, etc.

I should clarify when I say his dangerous I don't mean he is going to bring about WWIII or any hyperbolic nonsense like that. I just don't think he has what the US needs right now. I'm not sure Obama does either, and to be fair he has managed to be quite offensive towards Britain too. I don't have a problem with his personal beliefs even if I think they are silly myself, that's what freedom of religion is all about. I think some of his ideas would be detrimental to the USAs economic recovery (particularly his expressed wish to maintain high levels of military spending and increase the size of the military and particularlythe Navy, which would be extremely expensive), and with the EU economy being what it is we don't need any missteps from the US.

FTFY. I think he's too regressive and out of step, and agree the last thing we need is mistakes across the Atlantic dragging us back down.

Also
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma43dmPCcO1qgzm0mo1_500.jpg
3062

[eldargal]

Regarding abortion, part of the problem is the terrible way the debate is being held over there. Being pro-choice (as I am) does not mean you are pro-abortion. I for one would never have an abortion regardless of the circumstances under which I conceived. But I will fight tooth and nail (and fist to the groin) for womens right to choose. The simple fact is if a woman really doesn't want to carry a child to term they will find a way to have an abortion, and it is far better if they can have that operation in a safe, clean environment than in some backyard clinic run by opportunists or criminals with little to no medical training, or even attempt it themself at home. You jsut get more deaths that way, and that is not a good thing.
Also you can't talk about it being the convenient choice when often it is the woman who has to do it all on her own. Say a woman has a bit too much to drink and has sex with a stranger at a party, if you say 'well you can't have an abortion because you made a choice' you are forgetting that it takes two to conceive. In this case ALL the responsibility, pain, inconvenience and financial expense of bearing, birthing and raising the child falls to the woman, if you do not allow her to have an abortion. Many of these women simply are not in a position to raise a child and so forcing them to carry it would either end in an illegal abortion, an adoption or a child raised in a poor environment.
When a collection of cells becomes human is really irrelevent, the issue is when it can survive outside the womb. At that point abortion should not be allowed. That this is an issue again shows how twisted the debate has become over there.

I don't like abortion and as I said I would never have one. I would much rather we live in a world where abortions are not needed. But until that happens it is simply the lesser evil. Banning them just results in more deaths as you drive them underground. I don't have a problem with peopel holding that abortions are immoral, but under that circumstance it has to be a case of 'abortion is against my beliefs, so I won't have one' not 'abortion is against my beliefs, so no one can have one'.

My other issue regarding abortion is the equal protection aspects related to it. In many states in the US - if someone were to run into a pregnant woman on her way to have an abortion performed while doing something like texting while driving or DWI...and the woman were to die, they would be charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter. If the law identifies a fetus as a human for the purpose of murder or manslaughter charges - it should also define it as a human and protect it from abortions. If they want to allow abortions - get rid of the laws that that identifies it as such. Either way, I don't care - however the inconsistency under the law indicates that it isn't nearly as straight forward as the pro-choice crowd would like to promote it.

That situation would be extraordinarily rare, though. I will grant tht some consistency is desired, until the child can survive outside the womb it should not be considered a seperate life.


I also am fairly well certain that the support of Israel is not the source of the extremists over there. There is a large chunk within the Muslim religion who believes that the whole world should be converted and they will do so by force if necessary. Israel is a nice lightning rod in the area which keeps them occupied...and in my own self serving interests that is a good thing.
Actually it is responsible for a lot of them. Israel is seens as a thief nation that can do whatever it want but whenever a Muslim nation does it, they get in trouble/invaded. Israel has nuclear, biological anc chemical weapons yet they enjoy the protection of the US. Iran fears those weapons so it wants to get nuclear weapons, and there is hell to pay. The perception in the MidEast is that it is hypocritical and another sign of the West being out to get Islamic countries. Another factor is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia propping up a frightful and frightfully unpopular regime.

The sad irony is that until the creation of Israel Islamic-Jewish relations were extremely good.


While they are not the main rival or concern...they are far from an friend in the international community. From weapons proliferation to internal political crack downs and past actions regarding shutting off supplies of natural gas during the middle of winter to force the hands of European neighbors - I wouldn't call them a friendly nation.

They are probably not the most important one - but they are definitely in the top two (if you take into account their ability to impact us and their desire to as opposed to simply their desire to...as some countries would be much happier to interfere with our concerns but are incapable of doing so to any significant extent).
Agreed, hence his statement that they were the main geopolitical rival being inexplicable. It is not a nice country, and it is a problem. But it is not the main rival of the US.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

She makes a valid point.

Also, if EG knows how to make a sandwich then you can colour me impressed. :p
I could quite happily go for a ham and cheese toastie right now...

*awaits the imminent buttkicking from EG*

Come at me woman! :D

[eldargal]

I don't do domestic.:p I understand the principles behind sandwich construction but I've seldom actually assembled one and when I have it has been for my own consumption.

[Psychosplodge]

I think they should introduce the post natal abortion you become eligible once you've bought a fake burberry cap...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Please? And could you bring it to work? I'm bored...

[Sean_OBrien]

Also you can't talk about it being the convenient choice when often it is the woman who has to do it all on her own. Say a woman has a bit too much to drink and has sex with a stranger at a party, if you say 'well you can't have an abortion because you made a choice' you are forgetting that it takes two to conceive. In this case ALL the responsibility, pain, inconvenience and financial expense of bearing, birthing and raising the child falls to the woman, if you do not allow her to have an abortion. Many of these women simply are not in a position to raise a child and so forcing them to carry it would either end in an illegal abortion, an adoption or a child raised in a poor environment.

Nope. I fully understand that it takes two (really I do). However, again with that whole equality under the law thing... If someone has too much to drink and gets pregnant, that is a choice which they made...quite likely several choices which were made all the way up to the point which they became too drunk to take reasonable precautions - though that isn't quite where the equality comes into play, as both parties are well and good up the creek then.

If the guy happens to be a bit of a looker and on the right track - the girl may well intentionally get pregnant in order to hitch her wagon to him. He may not be in the appropriate position to provide a good home or may well just hate kids and either did something he would rather forget (beer goggles), was taking reasonable precautions (prophylactic failure), or just was lied too (don't worry - I am on the pill). They have no recourse in those eventualities.

Even if he were to walk away, the courts will hit his paycheck for the next 18 years and take the money. If he refuses to pay, they will throw him in jail. While I haven't seen specific studies on the matter (sure I can find something though) - based on anecdotal evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if that was as common as the girls case.


When a collection of cells becomes human is really irrelevent, the issue is when it can survive outside the womb. At that point abortion should not be allowed. That this is an issue again shows how twisted the debate has become over there.

While I can see how you can choose that option as the measure, it is a significant point of contention, especially for those who do consider it a human life. I can fully understand how they can vehemently be against abortion as well.

The when they can survive on their own is not an very good measure though. 50 years ago, that point would have been somewhere around 34 weeks. Now it is common for preterm births as early as 24 weeks to survive and I think the record ends up being around 21 weeks or so.

As a measurement for this sort of thing, moving targets aren't very helpful

[DrLove42]

On original post, I feel Romneys comments are so far from being sexist that they ARE sexist. But maybe not against women

Hes going out of his way to show that hes not sexist, is showing that he is being.

Only men at an interview? Insist that there are women there. They may not be the best candidate for the job as you assume those selected are just the best, but he can't be seen to be sexist so has to invite people who are less suited over men who may be.

Give a woman a job? If a guy had been given the job and asked to leave early all the time what are the chances he would be given the same privledge?

His actions are an over exageration to show hes not sexist, which suggests them to be slightly farcical. And in those actions hes discrimating against men as well

[Psychosplodge]

Nope. I fully understand that it takes two (really I do). However, again with that whole equality under the law thing... If someone has too much to drink and gets pregnant, that is a choice which they made...quite likely several choices which were made all the way up to the point which they became too drunk to take reasonable precautions - though that isn't quite where the equality comes into play, as both parties are well and good up the creek then.

If the guy happens to be a bit of a looker and on the right track - the girl may well intentionally get pregnant in order to hitch her wagon to him. He may not be in the appropriate position to provide a good home or may well just hate kids and either did something he would rather forget (beer goggles), was taking reasonable precautions (prophylactic failure), or just was lied too (don't worry - I am on the pill). They have no recourse in those eventualities.

Even if he were to walk away, the courts will hit his paycheck for the next 18 years and take the money. If he refuses to pay, they will throw him in jail. While I haven't seen specific studies on the matter (sure I can find something though) - based on anecdotal evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if that was as common as the girls case.



While I can see how you can choose that option as the measure, it is a significant point of contention, especially for those who do consider it a human life. I can fully understand how they can vehemently be against abortion as well.

The when they can survive on their own is not an very good measure though. 50 years ago, that point would have been somewhere around 34 weeks. Now it is common for preterm births as early as 24 weeks to survive and I think the record ends up being around 21 weeks or so.

As a measurement for this sort of thing, moving targets aren't very helpful


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

And there hassn't been any significant improvement in survival of 21-24 weeks premature births, it was recently discussed by doctors on the BBC as various tories want to reduce the limit and cited your argument, and generally people born that early suffer serious health problems throughout life as a direct result.

[eldargal]

But you're not raising points against abortion, you're just raising hypotheticals that may happen in a small number of cases that really have no bearing on the issue. The simple fact is after conception it is the mother that bears the brunt of the effort and cost of raising a child when they aren't in a commited relationship. Support from the father only comes in when the father is known, and in many cases he isn't, or he may be absent or unable to make meaningful payments. By banning abortion you are forcing women to cede control over their bodies to the government, basically. Largely at the behest of men who are incapable of being in a similar situation. There is a reason abortions occur, and that is that women do not always want to have their life taken over by a child. By banning abortions you aren't stopping them but simply driving them underground where more women will die as well as the foetus. Whatever you think abotu abortion when it comes down to it banning abortion just makes it worse, this is why they were legalised in many countries in the first place.

I really hate it when people, especially men, talk about accepting consequences for 'the mistake' when it comes to abortion, because they don't have to. The most you have to do if you don't want to be in a relationship with her is sacrifice a bit of money, boo sodding hoo. It is the woman who has her entire life altered by it.

If you want to ban abortions then guarantee state funds and support for all births to make sure they are adequately supported and why not maintain a DNA register of all adult males while you're at it so the father can always be identified and be made to take responsibility for his actions too.

The quote from the Benedictine nun really sums it up. Much of the pro-life debate isn't about the sanctity of life, it is about denying women control of their own bodies. In doing so you put more lives at risk.

[eldargal]

Another thing, if you are going to argue that the 'moral choice' is or a woman to maintain a life whether she wants to or not, why aren't we legislating for compulsory organ donation? The principle is the same, the maintenance of life.

To sum it all up:
Without access to legal abortion, women die. The fetuses die. Women do not have control over their own bodies. Women are being held to a different moral standard than men. Women are forced to maintain life while men are not.

At no point does banning abortion do anything but result in more deaths and the continued oppression of women. Those who claim to be pro-life and want to ban abortion are in fact condoning murder far more than those who are pro-choice, because those that are dying aren't ambiguous collections of cells but girls and women of all ages.

[Deadlift]

I'm on the pro choice side, it's the choice of the mother of the child to decide if she wants to keep the baby. Her body, her choice. End of debate.

[Sean_OBrien]

Another thing, if you are going to argue that the 'moral choice' is or a woman to maintain a life whether she wants to or not, why aren't we legislating for compulsory organ donation? The principle is the same, the maintenance of life.

Again, you confuse my statements of understanding with statements of agreement - and dismiss the lack of equal protection (which is in fact my only concern).

I don't have an opinion regarding abortion outside of the position that if abortion is legal to X date (whatever X date is) then if an action were to happen which would cause the death of the mother and or fetus before X date were met - they should not be charged with an additional count of murder/manslaughter regardless of the intent of the mother. There have already been cases which have occurred in the US which people have gone to jail as a result.

There also are instances where a woman becomes pregnant for whatever reason and that pregnancy may not be part of an informed consent choice between both parties. In some cases it might be the result of drunkeness, others it may be "equipment failure", others may be specific deceit on the part of the girl like saying she is on the pill or other birth control or even more bizarre circumstances (see State of Louisiana v. Frisard or S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M. or even State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer).

In all cases a support order is granted against the male party regardless of their consent to having a child. Sometimes the intent is to try and "trap" the guy into a relationship, others it is simply a desire to be pregnant. In State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer the male in question was 12 years old and the female in question was his babysitter. The court ordered child support against the 12 year old.

Those don't even address the ones who never go to court though because the guy "does the right thing and makes an honest lady out of the girl". Or the ones where they just hang around for the sake of the kid. If you poke around a bit, there is a disturbingly large amount of anecdotal information regarding the practice...though because of the nature of it, there is little hard research outside of the various contested cases (of which there are many more than I cited - those just tend to show some extreme examples).

All of those hypotheticals though demonstrate the inequality of the law regarding not being - given that 16% of custodial parents in the US are male, it isn't even a fair claim to say the long term burden falls on the mother either. The plurality may still be on them, but 16% is far from insignificant.

The issue which I raise regarding life and where it begins though is important to the issue. At some point it needs to be addressed, both for the purpose of the debate as well as the laws themselves. If it isn't you could (and do) have instances where an overly stressed father decides to take matters into their own hands and force a miscarriage. A recent case involved pushing the expectant mother down a set of stairs in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. The pregnancy was lost and there was no long term damage to the mother. The father was charged with and convicted of manslaughter.

In many ways, I feel that that is the just outcome - however given that if he would have simply gotten into a fight and she would have chosen to have an abortion the next day (it was in the first trimester IIRC) there would have been no crime at all. While he is scum and is getting what he deserved, that aspect of the case leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[wittdooley]

How about this:

Abortion isn't an important enough issue for people on either side using to use as their primary deciding factor on who to vote for. Nor is same-sex marriage. Sadly, too many people, again on both sides, do.

Much like Mr Obrien, I couldn't give two shytes about either of those issues enough to have it sway my decision away from, you know, the important stuff like our fiscal well being.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

And then you get thrown into a situation that involves abortion... Awkward...

[eldargal]

Well obviously something like the economy is important, but proposals to effectively take away womens control over their own bodies is hardly unimportant. It is very easy to brush it off as a minor issue when your gender already has control over their bodies and hasn't had to fight for it.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I agree with that.
Everyone has THE RIGHT to decide what they do with their own bodies, no one should be able to change that.

No one should have to fight to maintain their liberties, that's why they are called liberties surely?

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, the Freakonomics guys did some fancy statistics, and they believe that the decrease in crime in the last decade is primarily due to legalized abortions under Roe vs Wade.


Another thing, if you are going to argue that the 'moral choice' is or a woman to maintain a life whether she wants to or not, why aren't we legislating for compulsory organ donation? The principle is the same, the maintenance of life.


False equivalence. The woman didn't give the patient heart disease to force them to need a heart transplant. You are taking a fetus, which some believe to be a living human being, and killing it. Some, such as Romney, agree that in certain cases like when birth threatens the health of the mother, that an abortion may be allowed, or even necessary.

What I'm saying is that the question central to the debate is 'when does the fetus become "alive"?'. Pro-lifers believe that the fetus is alive, and that abortion is murder, and that a woman has no more right to murder their child before birth than after birth. You might see it differently, but you have to understand that it's the idea that abortion is murder that is central to this belief. To ignore that and try and turn the pro-lifers into evil sexist misogynists is to fundamentally misunderstand what they are saying and what they believe.

And, of course, some try to take it further and denounce birth control, but I don't think anyone thinking rationally can buy that argument with a straight face.

[Mr Mystery]

That's Nowt. I hear their's people convinced Obama is both Muslim (he isn't) and not American (he is)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well there's the point of it, when IS the foetus alive?


Also, what is the point of bringing a life into a world that cannot sustain it?
What is the point of bringing a child to a broken home?
Why would you bring it into a world when it will have no quality of life?

These are the questions...

[eldargal]

When the foetus is alive is largely irrelevent, actually. The central issue is womens control of their own body. Even if life begins at conception they cannot be forced to maintain a life they do not want to sustain. Of course the orgn donation example is not equivalent, there is no equivalent, that is part of the problem. No man will EVER have to face the same kind of issue, but forced organ donation is apt in one way, that you would be being forced to maintain a life whether you want to or not. Just as women would be forced to maintain a life whether they want to or not.


What I'm saying is that the question central to the debate is 'when does the fetus become "alive"?'. Pro-lifers believe that the fetus is alive, and that abortion is murder, and that a woman has no more right to murder their child before birth than after birth. You might see it differently, but you have to understand that it's the idea that abortion is murder that is central to this belief. To ignore that and try and turn the pro-lifers into evil sexist misogynists is to fundamentally misunderstand what they are saying and what they believe.
I don't have an issue with someone believing that abortion is murder, even though they are wrong. What I have an issue with is people trying to deny women control over their bodies based on their BELIEFS, especially when it would lead to more deaths and not of foetuses of ambiguous nature but of fully developed women of all ages. If you belief abortion is murder then don't have an abortion.

If you ban abortion, more people will die, foetuses and mothers both. Doctors who continue to perform abortions as a matter of conscience rather than have the omen go to dangerous underground abortions clinics to save lives will be sent to prison. Abortion isn't nice or good, it is a necessary evil. If you don't like abortions the best thing you can do is make contraceptives as widely and easily available as possible and try and remove the stigma attached to being pregnant without being married or while a teenager.

[Mr Mystery]

Being a bloke, and well known liberal, I simply believe in a woman's right to choose.

Lacking the correct plumbing, it's not something I'd ever have to worry about. To my mind, that is as far as any man should get involved in the debate.

As for those anti-abortion, just don't have one. Issue solved.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think that's the solution really.

[Phototoxin]

When the foetus is alive is largely irrelevent, actually. The central issue is womens control of their own body. Even if life begins at conception they cannot be forced to maintain a life they do not want to sustain.

By that reasoning infantcide should be legal yet most people find it morally repugnant. A newborn is totally dependent on its mother, why does emerging from a uterus suddenly instill it with rights that it didn't have before?

No man will EVER have to face the same kind of issue, but forced organ donation is apt in one way, that you would be being forced to maintain a life whether you want to or not. Just as women would be forced to maintain a life whether they want to or not.

The difference is that if someone forces you to donate organs when alive it might kill you.


What I have an issue with is people trying to deny women control over their bodies based on their BELIEFS, especially when it would lead to more deaths and not of foetuses of ambiguous nature but of fully developed women of all ages. If you belief abortion is murder then don't have an abortion.


That's relativism, either abortion is right or wrong. And I think you'll find that countries with more restrictive access to abortion have better maternal health overall. (Republic of Ireland for example, despite it's health system being otherwise terrible)


If you ban abortion, more people will die, foetuses and mothers both.
That is simply false.

Just because a foetus cannot speak or act for itself doesn't mean that we should deny it the dignity of treating it like a human being. IF you don't want the child give it up for adoption but killing it seems to be the worst possible choice.

[Mr Mystery]

Twaddle and false dichotomy.

Abortions should be legal, and leave it to the individual to decide whether is it right for them. Just like organ donation. That's currently opt-in in the UK. The procedure itself is completely legal (and for my tuppence worth, a deeply honourable one). If your personal belief, religious or not is that you should go to your grave complete, that's cool too.

People may ask you to consider it sure. But I'm yet to see a Doctor actively touting for business when it comes to abortion. And the whole 'abortion as a contraceptive' is just scare mongering, and without (presumably illegal) access to confidential medical records, quite impossible to prove.

[Phototoxin]

Twaddle and false dichotomy.

Abortions should be legal, and leave it to the individual to decide whether is it right for them. Just like organ donation. That's currently opt-in in the UK. The procedure itself is completely legal (and for my tuppence worth, a deeply honourable one). If your personal belief, religious or not is that you should go to your grave complete, that's cool too.

People may ask you to consider it sure. But I'm yet to see a Doctor actively touting for business when it comes to abortion. And the whole 'abortion as a contraceptive' is just scare mongering, and without (presumably illegal) access to confidential medical records, quite impossible to prove.

Twaddle and false dichotomy yourself, I never mentioned doctors looking to perform abortions nor any reference to abortion as a contraceptive option.

[Mr Mystery]

I was moving the debate along, using other baseless arguments those who want it outlawed vomit up on occasion.

[eldargal]

By that reasoning infantcide should be legal yet most people find it morally repugnant. A newborn is totally dependent on its mother, why does emerging from a uterus suddenly instill it with rights that it didn't have before?
A newborn can be sustained with a bottle, a fetus cannot. After 24 weeks or so the fetus can, with the help of expensive equipment, be sustained outside the womb. Sometimes earlier, often with significant lifelong health issues. In short, don't be moronic.


That is simply false.
No, it is simply fact. You ban abortions all you do is drive them underground and women die. We know this because this actually happened, it was why abortions were legalised in the first place. Banning abortions, as some pro-lifers want, would simply result in moy deaths. It isn't the moral choice, it is the ideological choice.

Ireland is a great example, they just come to Britain to have an abortion, thousands every year. Again the abortions still happen, the difference is they can come to Britain and have it done properly in a clinic instead of ramming a coat hanger up their vagina in the bath and risking their own life.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Note that the posters who are "pro life" are male. :/

As males we will not know what carrying a child is like, but we will know what happens after as we should be looking after that child too.

[Phototoxin]

A newborn can be sustained with a bottle, a fetus cannot. After 24 weeks or so the fetus can, with the help of expensive equipment, be sustained outside the womb. Sometimes earlier, often with significant lifelong health issues. In short, don't be moronic.

So being able to be sustained makes a person worthy of life?



No, it is simply fact. You ban abortions all you do is drive them underground and women die. We know this because this actually happened, it was why abortions were legalised in the first place.


In the UK abortions were originally only legalised for very specific circumstances, a far cry from the current 'on demand' situation that is prevalent today.


Banning abortions, as some pro-lifers want, would simply result in moy deaths. It isn't the moral choice, it is the ideological choice.

I somehow doubt 180,000 women would die per year if abortion was banned.


Ireland is a great example, they just come to Britain to have an abortion, thousands every year Again the abortions still happen, the difference is they can come to Britain and have it done properly in a clinic instead of ramming a coat hanger up their vagina in the bath and risking their own life.

Or y'know they could not have an abortion, people die from 'safe' abortions too.

Also please do not refer to me as 'moronic'


Note that the posters who are "pro life" are male. :/

As males we will not know what carrying a child is like, but we will know what happens after as we should be looking after that child too.

And this invalidates our opinions and arguments how?

[Mr Mystery]

Well, lets see...

1) It's nothing to do with you
2) you will NEVER been in a position to make said decision
3) Taking into account the first two points, this is your business because?

And it's not often I'm actively rude to people, but I agree with Eldargal. Your arguments are moronic, simply being 'I don't like it, so it should be banned and to hell with the consequence.

Tell me, what's your position on state funded single mothers?

[eldargal]

Also please do not refer to me as 'moronic'
Then stop spewing nonsense.


So being able to be sustained makes a person worthy of life?
I'm not sure what your point is? The issue is that while the fetus is dependent on the mother the mother has the right to choose whether or not to continue to sustain it. It is essentially a parasite within her. Again the central issue here is womens control over their own bodies.


I somehow doubt 180,000 women would die per year if abortion was banned.
You don't know that, if you criminalise abortion abortions will still happen regardless, and with no recourse to safe abortions a lot of those will result in death. An abortion performed properly is very safe, performed poorly it is extremely dangerous.


Or y'know they could not have an abortion, people die from 'safe' abortions too.
Rarely. The fact is there will always be abortions and it is better for everyone that they be performed safely.

I don't have a problem with anyone having moral qualms about abortion, as I've said I would never have one myself. What I take exception to is people trying to take away womens right to control their own body, especially men who will never be in a similar situation and who do not bear the burden of child birth and rearing in most cases.


And this invalidates our opinions and arguments how?
It doesn't invalidate them, and there are plenty of pro-life women. But what it means is that most men will have difficulty emphasising because they will never have an unwanted pregnancy, suffer the stigma of said pregnancy if young/out of wedlock, go through the agony of childbirth and then shoulder most of the responsibility for raising the child. The willingness of men to dictate what a woman can do with her body is unacceptable, and I thank god I live in a civilised country where women are in control of their bodies the way men are in control of theirs.

Well, lets see...

1) It's nothing to do with you
2) you will NEVER been in a position to make said decision
3) Taking into account the first two points, this is your business because?

And it's not often I'm actively rude to people, but I agree with Eldargal. Your arguments are moronic, simply being 'I don't like it, so it should be banned and to hell with the consequence.

Tell me, what's your position on state funded single mothers?
This. You worry about your body and let women worry about what is going on in theirs.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

That ban button is becoming increasingly tempting...

Also how does that invalidate your opinion? Because you don't have a vagina maybe?

[Gotthammer]

Unless you've been in the situation, you can't know what it's like to make that choice.

If you think it's easy, you are nothing but a fool.




http://youtu.be/vCZ1YteCv5M

[wittdooley]

You know, the whole legalize abortion argument only treats the symptom, not the cause. The cause is irresponsible morons getting pregnant. We need to find a way to curb that.

And I love you EG, but the central argument in any abortion debate has to be the differentiation between a life and a non-life. If the fetus is alive, having an abortion is murder, isn't it? As American law goes, it seems to be in some instance (Sean O'Brien intimated these earlier in the example of vehicular manslaughter cases where a pregnant woman is killed) but not in others. That double standard needs to be resolved.

And if you go by your "ability to sustain life independently" argument, there are a great number of Americans in the United States that are just as "parasitic" as a fetus. Do we begin euthanizing all of the infirm that are dependent on another's care or a machine to sustain their life?

I understand and respect the fact that this is primarily a women's issue, but to discount the opinions of men wholesale on it is, IMO, a bit irresponsible. Like I said earlier, the issue is not whether women should have choice over their bodies, but whether or not women should have the choice to murder a fetus (and again, this is the sticky point, because when does a fetus become "alive"). Some believe they are alive, and thus, any abortion is murder. And again, like I said before, addressing abortion only treats the symptom, not the cause: there are far too many women in the US where abortion or the morning after pill is their form of birth control, and with the availability of birth control in the US (be it the pill or condoms) that is irresponsible and reprehensible.

I will, however, stand by my opinion that this isn't an important enough issue on which to base your vote.

[Mr Mystery]

Is it irresponsible when the contraception fails? Is it irresponsible when a woman is raped? And how do you approve a rape related abortion? Does the man have to be found guilty? Does the rape have to be reported? Does the woman have to go through pretty invasive tests to prove she was raped? What of non-violet rape?

As much as all are entitled to their beliefs and values, the only truly moral legal standing is to keep abortion legal, and leave the matter to the individual involved.

[eldargal]

Around half of all abortions are undertaken in cases where contraception was used and failed, for various reasons (including it has to be said, incimpetence) it really isn't fair to just label them as morons. Not to mention it takes two to get a woman pregnant and the simple fact is the men do not bear the brunt of the effort.

Well, animals and plants are alive and we kill them. We don't have an arbitrary definition of life that precludes killing it. A fetus is a life, but it is a parasitic life that lives inside the woman and cannot survive when removed without a great deal of help after 24 weeks and not at all before.The infirm to whom you refer may not be able to survive without assistance, but they aren't inside another human who has rights of her own, not least of which should be the right to control her own body. There is an immense difference between 'relying on the care of a family member/a nurse' and 'can't survive outside the mothers body'.

If there is a double standard then that does need to be resolved, but that doesn't reflect on abortion. I really can't help but feel that people being charged with manslaughter despite being responsible for the death of an infant the woman was going to abort anyway would be incredibly rare and hardly worth making radical changes over.

Also there is no evidence that women in the US are using abortion as a contraceptive. Just over half of all women (52%) who have an abortion in the US each year have never had one before, and around half that again (26%) have had one previous abortion. Now without contraception or abortions a woman can have around one pregnancy a year, using abortion as their primary form of contraception they could have two or three. Over thirty years, average, of fertility women would be having dozens of abortions and this simply is not the case*.

*Source: Abortion surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 2002.

Again, no one is arguing that abortion is nice or good, it isn't. But it is a necessary evil because not only is banning it a gross violation of individual freedom, one that men will never be threatened with, but it just results in driving abortions underground and into the hands of criminals without the medical training to perform them safely. So women, and fetusus, die and those that survive can end up mutilated and often rendered infertile. I would much rather live in a world where abortions were not required either, but the puritanical reaction to pregnancies out of wedlock amongst evangelists in the US doesn't help any. Funnily enough 40% of women who have abortions in the US each year are from evangelist or Catholic background, better to have na abortion on the sly than become a social outcast and kicked out of home.

As you say whether or not the fetus is alive is a sticky point, so the easiest thing to do is say that if you believe abortion is urder, don't have one, but accept that other people may have a different opinion and can't have others beliefs forced onto.

I wouldn't base my vote on it either, but it would factor into my opinion of a candidate.

EDIT: Oh and regarding the morning after pill, it delays ovulation and thickens cervical mucus, preventing fertilisation. It is not an 'abortive pill' as some claim. Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0).

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

*twitches*

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Thread closed, because reasons.