I was just about to cross the line into too much thought, there.

Oh there's always a need for Ant's bollocks, old bean.

There isn't much I will diagree with in your post. It is well thought out and nearly [if not] entirely on point.

I want to caution you on one point in fact however which makes a difference when we talk about idealogies and where they came from and why:

The real reason, aside from anything anyone will ever tell you (but I suspect you may already know), is that the United States was not formed just to promote religious freedom and get representation. Sure, we didn't want to pay taxes to mean old King George. We abhorred the taxes imposed by Parliament. But more importantly, the spectre of continued English, King -rule threatenened the interests of moneyed, propertied whites. The fact that freedoms became part of the reasoning was a bit of subterfuge really on the part of our Statesmen; they had to make it attractive to the everyman in order to get them to do the fighting for them. You didn't see Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry painted in battlefield artworks brandishing muskets, they were newsmen and landowners, respectively and they got common people to fight for them.

Interestingly enough, one of the first things politicised was divorce, not typically legal at the time. Any woman who considered herself a Patriot was granted a divorce from her Loyalist husband if so desired. Native Americans were not really sympathetic to the American rebels or British (fearing reprisals from either), but the Iroquois did join against the rebels hoping to halt American expansion into their lands. As time went on, various tribes sided with one or the other; unfortunately they were sort of in a no win scenario with either. When the Iroquios fled to Canada, they found after the war was over that the British had ceded land they didn't control to America. So the problems with NAs started early. Blacks also were politicised early on, the British trying to encourage slave revolts, but they had to be careful doing this lest their own slave trade be endangered or the social order be disrupted by revolts (West Indies) by their own slaves. Interesting times, and it was later easy to demonise Indians (as Columbus called them, but he was an idiot of the highest order).

So really, we started out as unified then broke apart so to speak. There are always some who think theyhave a better idea or a better way of doing things. So we had multiple parties; I think every possible political name combination has been used to describe groups and their political style of representation. Patriots, Whigs, Americans - whatever.

I am with you that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps years ago there was but now it is just about power and control. That is where the demonisation comes in. They have to demonise each other so they can get into power. Fortunately our system, albeit a very imperfect one, kepps the pendulum swinging, but it never stays in the middle lest the middle be also demonised. Libertarians don't have a chance of winning because the money machines (MIC) are well entrenched in conventional D vs. R politics.

Abortion should never be allowed to be a part of politics. It is a moral issue rather than either a legal or political one. The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed. Simple as that. Yes, oversimplification and the feminazis will bitch about it (ever notice they never much look like they'd ever need an abortion?) but in this day and age there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy in most cases, rape aside. Rape is often used as a crutch in support of abortion, but rape pregnancies are difficult to actually account for. I agree that abortion should be rare, although legal.

Your example of Republicans and Christians is actually an excellent example, but that is not to say there aren't Christian Democrats because there are. Being Methodist, I see both sides. One area where there seems to be a lot of disagreement is where alcohol is concerned. Methodism does not allow alcohol, either for communal wine or events such as Beef and Beer as a fundraiser with any other festivity. Interestingly, Catholics (despite the protestations of some Methodists and Other Protestants) are indeed Christians and let the alcohol flow freely for the aforementioned events - gambling as well! Why do the Methodists not allow drinking? Perhaps because John Wesley was a bit of a kook with an estranged wife and he felt it should be forbidden (although emphasis was given to "strong drink"). But Protestants and Catholics are Christian, and according to American law, both drink and gambling are legal. Abortion only adds to the confusion because of traditional church stances. Abortion is nothing more than a political football. Candidates have to be careful how they speak of it for fear alienating their base or in appealing to their opposition for support.
  Abortion, voter IDs, welfare, health care, immigration are all issues that all are largely agreed on but are turned into bargaining chips for political support.

Republicans: Pro-business and for people to make their own way rather than having government provide. Allow the marketplace, free enterprise and competition work to strike the balances.

Democrats: Pro-Union, have the government force businesses (taxes) to help take care of what people may not be able to do for themselves, the government will provide the rest. The government will oversee and regulate so that businesses cannot control the money. Claim to be for the "little guy"
  …[Message Truncated] View full message.

>> The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed

I'm sure the rest of your post is well thought out and reasoned but I'm afraid I stopped reading at that sentence.

I guess that makes me a feminazi, but surely the easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid men to keep their junk in the trunk.

This all day long.

When it comes to stupid men and women, it's a two-way street. A game of two halves.

Trouble is, because they're stupid nothing you can say will make the slightest difference.

That too. It is a too way street. But stupid men never do. Even smart men don't.

I figured you would know what I was talking about. The smart women already keep their legs closed, insist on precautions or take the steps themselves.

Actually here, it might be construed to mean they should engage in bum fun instead. Anyway, I thought you called it a boot over there...

What Kos said. I agree with (and enjoyed) the bulk of your post but that line about women is totally unacceptable.

Oh boy. I started to formulate a reply but what Truffy said is too true -  to paraphrase, nothing you say to stupid makes the slightest difference.

Try me.

Well, nothing like focusing on one aspect of something and only commenting on that.

Obviously, you didn't get it. The comment was not directed at all women, because all women are decidedly not stupid. But in this day and age, women who become pregnant against their wishes - with all the possible forms of contraception available - nearly everywhere, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy to occur. Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here.

Stupid: Ill-advised, foolish, shortsighted, unthinking. I think they all fit. The Apostle Paul used silly to describe certain women. Perhaps that would have been a better fit.

Silly: irresponsible, imprudent, immature. Yes, that is a better fit.

Terry: Say Karen, how's about a bit of boom-boom?

Karen: Not prudent at this juncture, Terry - you've got no protection.

Terry: Aw, c'mon luv! Just a bit o...

Karen: No!

She has to carry it, I'd say the woman's got a bigger stake in it than the cad who is likely love 'em and leave 'em. The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many.

Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, or just old.  :-{)

Literally commented on the entire post, you madman.

The problem is singling out the women. In fact you say later:

Ok I can't do proper quotes any more, so here's an old fashioned quote:

"The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many."

You kinda excuse the men. The tone is: Boys will be boys, so it's up to the women to take responsibility.

Regardless of who bears the brunt of the consequences, if someone gets pregnant then (in usual circumstances) two people are equally responsible.

"Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here."

I really don't believe that many do. I'm sure that some do, a tiny fraction, and you're right in that anyone behaving this way is 'too many'. But really it's entirely up to them, if they want to behave that way then that is their responsibility, that's the point of choice. While I believe that's wrong, I don't believe the state has any right to proscribe that behaviour (though I do think healthcare professionals should intervene).

I DO NOT excuse the men AT ALL. Don't try to put words in my mouth by telling me what my tone was. If you don't know or understand, please ask in the future because you don't know me well enough to know my mind.

The simple fact that some if not many men are in fact quite adept at walking away from responsibility and the women know it means that someone has to be the sensible one. For the sake of the woman who has to carry the child and be responsible for bringing the child up through the years (if the male refuses), she then has to put on the limits. The men won't and you know it. They will press for advantage at any opportunity. Surely you aren't young and naive enough not to know this. I have seen it time and again within my own extended family.

Ever heard this: How do you know it's mine?

My grandmother was given to say, "A stiff prick has no conscience". She knew that as a young girl in the 1930s and it is still true today. Yes, two people are responsible. But if the man walks away, the girl is left holding the bag. It isn't fair or right, but it is how it ends up all too often.

Fathers should teach their sons responsibility and restraint. I taught mine to be a gentleman, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. But at some point he has to make choices for himself. I can't be there forever.
 

In this case, what you believe is irrelevant. Although the data may be somewhat flawed because people tend not to be truthful in this situation, many women - 40% or more - report to not have been using any form of birth control when being counseled for abortion.

 

So if one is not using birth control and decides tohave an abortion, it would seem to follow that pregnancy is undesired. Who has the abortion: the woman. Why? Because her and the man... Where's the man? Well, he... Yeah, like a shit he just turned his back.

 

A stiff clit has no conscience either. I still think you're excusing the men and the 'stiff prick' thing is an example of that. Men are animals when they're aroused and can't be expected to think straight but women are what? Passive observers during sex and should be expected to think straight?

You keep re-iterating that it's generally the woman who bears the brunt of the consequences and, while of course I agree, that's irrelevant. Suggesting it ought be more the woman's responsibility inherently absolves the man.

  That is not the same as 'using abortion as birth control' which strongly implies habitual, planned behaviour. Things happen in the heat of the moment. Yes, it's stupid, but that's kinda the point. "Using abortion as birth control" implies forethought and in such situations there clearly was none (which is the problem).

 

What is wrong with abortion being used as a form birth control when required?


From a medical/physical POV I can see there being an issue, as well as from a psychological POV.

But otherwise, what is the issue?

I was stating a personal ethical belief there (hence 'I believe') rather than trying to make any sort of objective argument. I, myself, would not want to have an abortion for the same reason I won't kill insects. I don't believe I have a right to do those things. But I don't believe that holding that belief gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do or judge them for whatever they do. I don't see it as an absolute moral issue (as the Catholic Church does, for example), just my personal ethical choice.

And I did say they have every right to use it in such a way if they really want to. Though I'd argue that if it really is used in lieu of other forms of birth control (i.e. the decisions is made upfront to use abortion instead of condoms or whatever) then that's a pretty wasteful use of resources.

(Sorry if that sounds snappy. Reading it back it sounds a bit snappy but I don't mean it that way)


 

That was addressed to Fixrman!

I don't have an issue with your view because you don't believe you have the right to force it upon others.

Hah. I have absolutely no idea why I thought that post was to me -_-

So, apart from physically and mentally, what's the issue? What's left for there to be an issue with?