Someone posted a picture in my towns facebook group of a store that had formula in stock. Nice gesture. Of course some idiot couldn't help themself and made it political. It took everything I had not to eviscerate them, but it is a relatively small community. I coach softball, am involved in girl scouts, volunteer at the school etc...just not worth it.

Good point, similar to you shouldn't be able to fly either since we aren't built for flying so guess you are doing the devil's work.

But then OTH it's really very simple. God provided us with a brain to build things to let us fly. God has provided for others to provide breast milk. It's all in (your own interpretation) of the plan.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body)".

To your point

But also

My original question was


Based on your answer, I'll take it as yes, you do believe a woman can abort a fetus up to birth (because it's up to the woman and her health care provider).

If this is correct, we'll agree to disagree. I do not know the precise timing (viability is as good of standard as any + or - some weeks), but IMO there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong (other than for life of mother).

I'm not bound by the laws of man's religions.

Is it very simple? Science is the enemy of religion. Man doesn't live to challenge the word of god according to religion. The word of god was brought to us by man, interpreted by man, and defined by man. Soooo...

Only pointing out the hypocrisy in the interpretations of the what is ok and what is not ok and the right loves to point out how their religion should be for everyone, but it's so twisted and manipulated that it's a farce for the rest of us.

The correct answer is yes. Full stop. Yes....because there is no other room for definition modifications by your standards, there is only black or white....so yes. right up to the day before.

Grey is my middle name, i like to try see both sides and if there are any missing context, assumptions, compromises etc. Think you have me mistaken for some of your more progressive absolute bros.

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic as it seems it's a non answer (sorry if you really did answer the question in the above posts) but I'll assume that you do believe a woman should be able to abort up to birth ... full stop.(like Lathum)

There is no doubt there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in religion (not sure about Buddhism, have to read more about that) and how they are interpreted for one's own gain.

But let's not pretend it's only the righteous/extreme right (because we know there are more moderate right) that are messed up here. If you truly believe a fetus can be aborted up
to point of birth (see post immediately above) we can have an interesting discussion of the extreme left hypocrisy (similar to the wtf baby formula tangent).

I'll just point out that my personal views are strengthened by, not contradicted by, the science here. The consensus of biologists - not religious leaders, but scientific experts in the human organism - is not that human life begins at the point of viability but much earlier. If the science said otherwhise I would reconsider my view. While I disagree with a number of the conclusions that are sometimes reached in it's name, I definitely do agree with the goal of following the science (which is not inherently in conflict with religion. Properly understood, I would describe them as complementary, not competing fields).

The real debate is not about that, but about personhood theory which is more a matter of philosophy/practicality. It's not a matter of science, but of separating human lives into those that are persons society is obligated to protect, and non-persons we are not (another obvious example being the permanently comatose and other end-of-life issues).

I'd be interested in reading that article, can you provide a link. My guess is the definition of 'human life'

I never said we shouldn't feed people we have detained.

Excellent job of proving my point

By the definition of the question, there is no room for grey. You defined the terms yourself. You said "should a woman be able to abort a fetus up to the birth?" You got the answer you wanted, for now I am surely a monster to you. It's the same question that pro lifers always ask. Because it's horrible and awful to imagine something like that. But yeah, when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers. The question is derived to put the respondent on the defensive, and force them to either commit to the answer in the way you framed it, or be jumped when they say no, and force them to agree that's it's an abomination and murder. That is the only avenue that question lives in. It's one, or the other. So in the context of the question the answer is yes.

The comparable question is, "are you pro forcing people to give birth against their will?" It's a yes or no question. Black and white. You either are, or aren't.

Nope, don't think you are a monster. Look how Larry, Grantdawg, Lathum (well after some prodding) and Brian (not specifically but he pretty much) answered with their caveats, assumptions. Look at my response and tone to Lathum. In no way do I think he is a monster.


Lathum thinks it was a trick question. You think its a stupid question. Whatever. Pro-lifers ask that question because it's a relevant question regardless of your & Lathum's fear of being put on the defensive or what others think about you.

There is no overall societal right answer to this question because how could there be with so angst. However, there is a right answer for each one of us personally. I answered, the others answered with whatever caveats they wanted to put in.

Regarding putting a person on the defensive. I'm pretty sure the feeding illegal immigrant babies was an attempt to put the other side on the defensive. So what, this is what happens on this board. State your position and live with the consequences/discussions. It seems to me you are willing to jump on others that make a stand but not willing to establish your own position (without complaining about it).


This is a fair (not stupid or trick question) and I'll answer it with my caveats because it's not black and white, there is some grey.

There is a certain point in time (i've stated I don't know exactly when but viability + or - some weeks is as good as any) that yes, a mother should give birth (natural, c-section whatever) to a viable fetus unless mother's life is in danger.

Take the 2 extreme examples. Let's use the example of 8.5 weeks. Definitely have the baby, there is no doubt in 99.99% of the cases, that is a viable living human being. On the other side, fertilization +2 weeks, nope I personally do not believe that is a human being then. The grey is around 22-24 weeks, that is the stage of viability so I'm willing to listen to each side.

Not sure what point I proved but okay. All I was looking for was an answer to what i believe to be a hard but fair question.

Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I think others did as well. The link Rainmaker posted is about providing formula to people we have detained. You said:


What measures are you saying the government should be taking? It seems pretty clear to me; we either supply those people with baby formula or we don't.

Is there no alternative to the formula that can't be found on store shelves?

No. Formula literally is the alternative...

If there were an alternative to formula, then we wouldn't be in the middle of a formula crisis.

I didn't reference any article? If you are referring to the consensus on when life begins, the brief recently submitted to SCOTUS, in support of neither party, is I think a good place to start:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ER%20PARTY.pdf

It's also worth observing that in the recent cases what we don't see are arguments being made to the contrary; that is, arguments submitted claiming that human life begins at some other point in time. The brief linked above does reasonably well in assessing why IMO - there's a long history here, humans have been studying life scientifically for quite a while, we treat animals in a certain way in terms of distinguishing between organisms, we have knowledge of genetics etc., and applying that to humans leads to the conclusion that human life starts at fertilization/conception. On that the brief states on page 4 as a bit of a key quote: " it can only be supplanted by an alternative view if there are paradigmatic shifts to axiomatic concepts within biology"

It's been discussed on these boards before, but it's also worth noting that there are a number of laws on the books in this country that assume this. Our national legal approach is definitely patchwork and varies from place to place, but California for example has had a fetal murder law for more than 50 years. This law was of course made famous in the Scott Peterson case. Courts there held in 2004 that killing an unborn fetus counts as a second homicide even if the assailant didn't know the victim was pregnant.

Sorry if I know nothing of taking caring of infants, but how did humanity survive before the invention of formula?

And is the survival of all Americans infants really in the hands of a handful of companies right now?

If an mothers milk didn't come in the baby either died of starvation or another woman would feed the baby. I suspect there were probably some other alternatives but likely not healthy for the child.

Not sure you are trying to be glib, but it is a much larger problem than a few American companies. If we as a society had better maternity leave women wouldn't need formula as much, for example.

Watching the right wing on social media talk about the formula crisis is very interesting. On the one hand, Biden happens to be president, so they want to play it up as a big deal that is All His Fault.

But women choosing to use formula implies that women, and not the state, are making choices about how best to care for their children. Which – with abortion in the news – cuts against current conservative thought. So there’s this weird tension between being mad about the formula crisis but also being mad at women for choosing to use formula.

Well, we could import some, but Trump's NAFTA replacement agreed to limit Canadian dairy imports because the Canuck government help their farmers too much, apparently.

Alexander Panetta on Twitter: "/ For those interested: Here’s the relevant chapter in USMCA that capped infant formula exports from Canada. https://t.co/8qiK2wwANt

Screengrab shows what the caps look like.… https://t.co/BTF8wiYRrQ"

So, yes, it is the hands of three companies.

Were Adam or Even inside a womb when God breathed life into the body? Nope. Therefore life begins at birth, when a baby first draws "God's breath".

That's my interpretation, and it's equally valid to Samuel Alito's.

Your response to Lathum was to clarify, and redirect to the specific question that you were asking. At no point did you leave any room for variation. If you did, instead of dictating the terms of the question you could have said, "are there any circumstances where a woman would need an abortion right up to the point of childbirth?" That question still gives you the answer you seek, and it allows for open ended discussion.


It was a very poor question. Pro lifers ask that question because it's worded in such a way that I've previously discussed, and addressed above. Your denying it because you don't believe me to be correct. I've written enough survey's to know better.


The conversation about feeding immigrant babies was started on the right side of the aisle. We wouldn't even be having it otherwise. I've stated my position pretty clearly.



I disagree, you're changing the rules to suit your desires.

Let me pull this together because sometimes things get lost in translation across multiple posts ...

My original question was

Lathum (ultimately) answered

I responded


In our conversation, you said
I replied
Your response


Three points on your last paragraph ...

In my response, no way do I think my response indicated Lathum (nor you) was a monster. I said we'll agree to disagree and moved on.

For first bold - it may not have been in my original question but in my back and forth with Lathum, I said below to him. I think this leaves plenty of room for open ended discussion.


In second bold - I've already stated my position that I did believe there were circumstances. So that's really not the question I wanted answered.

Let me know what your professional survey question writing credentials are. I’ve written a ton also in my line of work (implementation and change management).


That was in response to your being put on the defensive with the question. NoBodyhere was put on the defensive with that question. So what, that doesn’t determine the legitimacy of a question


I don’t know what the rules (yours?) are that I’ve changed. Please elaborate if you want. Otherwise I assume we’ll agree to disagree …

Not exactly sure what part of my post you accuse of me of being glib but I have no intentions pf that here.

I have never cared for an infant and from I've read most formula is produced by 3-4 companies in America.

I mean a big part of it is that the woman's body is conditioned throughout history to stimulate milk production based on the infant feeding, but we have come to a point in humanity where women need to be in the workforce in order to support said infant. This means that a female is not able to feed a baby every 2 hours and thus stimulate the natural milk production mechanism that caused infants to survive prior to the invention of formula. Yes breast pumps exist. No they are not as good as the real thing. All of this can contribute to a woman's breast milk production drying up. And we haven't even touched on women that can't produce enough milk naturally to begin with.

Also historically wet nurses existed which were women with really high natural breast milk production that would feed other women's children for money/goods/status whatever. It was the historical version of formula.

My wife was at home with both of a children, and attempted breast feeding. My daughter was off the breast in 6 months, and my son never could be fully breast fed. As a matter of fact my son had a hard time even on formula, it ended up only one type wouldn't cause him to vomit it all back up. Chances are in the past he would have probably died. Formula is a life saver for many babies.
I can't imagine what parents of babies like my son are going through right now. It has to be a complete nightmare.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I touched on maternity leave earlier. The other part of this is even is a woman CAN pump at work, a large number of employers do not provide a nursing area. Hell, when my wife worked for Procter and Gamble she had to pump in a supply closet with her back to the wall so no one would come in because the door didn't have a lock. Not exactly ideal conditions.

Hey thanks for the article. Glanced through it, didn't read it all. A little too detailed for me but I get the gist.

There is large (and to your point) scientific consensus that life begins at fertilization or soon after (e.g. not at week 22-24 "viability"). Googling tells me the counter is when does "personhood" (or similar terminology) begin. Definitely deep philosophical, religious etc. discussions there.

I don't owe you shit and your writing sucks.

Np.


I'll remember your criteria for a good question is not to put someone on the defensive. What a snow (GenX) flake.

I'm with PilotMan. It's a question designed to put the respondent in a poor rhetorical situation. You may not have done it on purpose, but there's a reason anti-choicers pose the question that way.


Call me crazy, but if you're looking for an actual discussion or a reasonable & constructive response, why wouldn't you try not to put someone on the defensive?

Calling someone a snowflake really just suggests you're looking for an argument.

Guys, that's been the MO his entire time on the boards. For him to claim otherwise is...well, pretty silly. (I still haven't figured out how or why he even found these boards; I don't believe he ever posted on FOF or OOTP, and right out of the gate started with "Hey what does everybody think about the Middle East?")

Often framing questions in a way that goes out of its way to not put people on the defensive serves only to make the question useless in actually producing any meaningful discussion. A question often needs to have 'teeth' to get at the desired issue(s).

Edward64 is one of the people on these boards who tends to get unfairly presumed and accused of things he isn't really doing, or at least that there's no evidence that he's doing. Often by the 'we want discussion, so long as it's along lines that agree with and validate our presumptions' crowd.

John Fetterman(senate race, PA) had a “minor stroke” which could be a potential problem but hopefully isn’t.

And what Pilotman said

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree on both counts. We've just become so used, as a society, to accusation/counter-accusation and controversy being mistaken for constructive discussion that no one has much of an idea how to construct an objective line of inquiry anymore.

Discussion was going well (somewhat) until he started using profanities and insults. No I'm not butt hurt but I've found best to return in kind of this board

I can only remember one time when I got personal and insulted first tbh. And that guy hopefully is no longer here. Feel free to call me out otherwise ...

Arrgh, sniped again by cuervo. That hurts, it really hurts

I don't really understand this defensive criteria. By definition that means approx 95% of non football discussion (okay exaggeration, the political & social issue threads) and the responses there are really not meant in good faith.

Almost everything here is putting someone on the defensive, especially with the bunch of whataboutism (and I admit I do that to)

I'm on mobile right now but I can find scores and scores of stuff that put posters here on the defensive. Should we call those out also and stop those discussions?

And I'll add others answered with whatever caveats, assumptions they wanted ...

I think the heartburn is this really is a tough question and some are embarrassed (? Or pick another word) to answer it.

Enjoy your vacation first.

Look, we've all been here a long time. We've all asked a lot of argumentative questions of each other. Generally, we all assume a bias in each other's questions (because most of us have 10+ years of experience with other posters' viewpoints) and away we go (e.g. "you're only asking it that way because you believe XXXX").

The difference here is that you've doubled-down on suggesting it's an objective question, which is consistent with the persona you've cultivated as a neutral poster. So, when it's pointed out to you that it's a biased/leading question you either need to accept it and seek to understand why, or work at odds to your cultivated persona. You did the latter, veering very close to "just asking questions" and adding the snowflake comment.

Sure, but generally most of us don't claim otherwise when engaging in the political threads. I mean, I have a long history of drawn-out arguments with folks on this board, and I've certained argued that I'm right, but I don't think I've ever argued that I'm neutral.


What you don't get is that the question is designed to entrap. It is designed to produce an answer that can be used against the respondent. Here's how it works:


Yes, list of caveats.

So you would support terminating a pregnancy that's, say, 1 week from birth?

Well, that's not really what I meant, but in extremely unlikely cases, possibly.

What about a child that's viable outside the womb?

Look, I don't want it to happen, but there's too many variables at play, it should be a decision between the woman and her doctor.


How, Edward, has the respondent been painted by this interaction? Would you say positive? The utilization of this questioning technique (including just snipping the original "yes" soundbite) has become so common in media/society (people have literally tried to do it to me in real life) that any self-respecting pro-choice advocate rejects the question on principle. The very act of asking the question in this manner undermines the conversation, because it's not a conversation, it's an attempt to get someone on record as supporting a view that can be construed to be extreme (e.g. I can see an instance where you would need to abort a viable fetus a week or two before birth.).


Similarly, if you answer yes, you have ceded ground to the anti-choice point of view. If you answer no, then see above.


As I wrote 12 years ago:



If you're going to wade into topic as challenging as abortion and try to be a neutral third party, then the onus is on you to do everything to avoid all of the freighted messaging that's built up in the 50+ years of controversy surrounding the topic.

I wonder if men would be quite so pro-life if:

1. A woman could simply tell authorities who the father was, and the man that she selected would have to undergo a mandatory paternity test.
2. If the test said they were the father, the man would have to provide financial support until the child was 21.

Right now, the father can usually walk away unscathed, while the mother bears the burden of supporting and raising the child.

as well as the social stigma...

Hell, in the case of rape (if we're going that far) you could say that the child should be the sole responsibility of the man. Of course I don't know how you prove that, proving rape is tough enough already and even if you do it's met with "such a promising boy, we can't harm his prospects!"

I would argue that none of us on this board (for or against) have any real stake in the result. We're all males, and thus, we are debating on something that happens to women.

The Nebraska gov who said women who are raped should keep the baby is exactly the Conservative angle on things. In their own warped sense of reality, they think this is the right path because in their way two wrongs don't make a right. Yet they cut all the support networks that could prevent these issues in the first place. How does rape occur in our society? How does poverty occur in our society?

The fuck you I got mine is prevalent in the Conservative thought process and if a few women get raped (or incest), that's just collateral damage for being in a godless society.

I also think that abortion rights should only be decided on by those who are affected by it (i.e. women who can bare children).

I grew up in Catholic school and pro-life was the way. I knew a girl who after high school we met up and I found out she left college to be with a guy, moved to Colorado, was being beaten by him and got pregnant. She got an abortion. It changed my perspective.

The world is far more dangerous for women, especially in a conservative country.

I raised a daughter that wasn't mine. She was the product of an abusive marriage. I don't know if her mother contemplated abortion, but she was told to have the baby full term. I think there was resentment on this. My daughter has very little contact with her "mother", we (my wife and I) adopted her. She has mental health issues because of all of this. She once told me she wished she was aborted. She is in a much better place now with therapy and medicine. She has a 4.0 and a good outlook on life. I'm damn lucky to have her in mine.

The point is, if I wasn't there, where would she be right now?

I'll add, I don't like the idea of abortion but I understand why it is needed and I support the woman's right on this. I don't think abortion is abused or treated lightly by people that go through it. If it is, they have far more fucked up issues they're dealing with, and it's a good thing that fetus doesn't come to term.

I also don't think the aborted remember. Much like all of us before we were born, we were in a state of stasis. And once we die, we'll return to that.

I do think this is about control. It is to punish women who stray from the conservative ideals. They're thought is if you get pregnant, it's your cross to bear regardless of how you got pregnant. It's old draconian thinking for those who can't handle the idea of a woman having empowerment for themselves.

So for the people here that didn't like how Edward phrased his question, how would you have phrased it? What would make it more objective and less subjective?

I have one child who has a uterus. They have a girlfriend, who also has a uterus. My son may one day marry someone who may well have a uterus.

My stakes are not direct, but I think I do have an interest.

You really don't have any stakes unless you want to. The male can opt out, or not be involved at the woman's discretion.

You won't have any say over your son's gf uterus anymore than he would. Same for your daughter or daughter's gf.

Now if the new abortion laws go into affect, don't worry, you won't have a say in that either, the State will.

I'm not sure one can constructed, given the controversial context of the topic. Which was rather my point.

There is no doubt it is a trap question. Much like "do you favor allowing abortions in case of rape and incest " is for the Pro-Choice side. People largely are repulsed by the idea of having to give birth to a rapist child, just as they are large repulsed by the idea of terminating a pregnancy right before natural birth. From what I can tell, in reality this is a more nuanced debate then what the extremes really allow.
I did answer the question, though. I try to give forum members the benefit of the doubt unless it is clear they are being disingenuous.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

This is the problem, you can't really phrase your questions to fit everyone's ideal method of delivery. It's written form, which of course leaves far too much room for interpretation. Spending all your time trying to appease everyone's sensibilities is fruitless.

Honestly, if someone's interpretation of question stirs anger or negativity, it's probably best to either move on, or at least not make the response so personal, in terms of name calling/attacking the other person.

Hell, then we have just become like a good portion of society, which is well, I disagree with that guy, so fuck him. It's always been one of the things I like about FOFC. There will always be friction on divisive topics, but people here generally are able to be civil.

And for the record, while I don't always agree with Edward, I believe that in his heart he truly tries to take a centrist approach to most things and is genuinely interested in having productive conversations in a respectful manner.

I mean, a case study of what not to do is post 5027 of this thread:



We can give Edward the benefit of the doubt that his intention was not to trap, but this is exactly a case study of how you use a trap question to paint someone in a negative manner.

Lathum's response was clearly nuanced and caveated, but Edward ultimately chooses to categorize it as "yes". He doubles down by saying "there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong" which, given its place in context, implies that the statement is made in opposition to Lathum's position, which is factually incorrect as Lathum never said "abortion is never wrong".


If you want to try and have a constructive discussion about a topic as controversial and complex as abortion, you don't simplify other people's arguments. Or, don't be surprised when they call you out on it.

I'm not as emotionally vested in this issue as others so I also don't get what is so awful about the question. Any legal restrictions have to be fairly know by the public. So one's position could be: never allowed, allowed before some certain period of time, or always allowed if permitted by a licensed doctor. With the option for exceptions from any restriction based upon rape or known birth defects or mother's health or whatever else.

I'm pro- always legal, but, I don't think asking someone what they think the law should be is necessarily some kind of trick. It just seems that it's a hard question to ask or answer for some people, based on a lot of real and perceived baggage and bias going into the query. Buy someone totally anonymously asking that question to a stranger seems really normal.

The problem isn't so much the question, which FTR I find lazy. It is what those on the right tend to do with the response, which is bend it in to a GOTCHA!! which is exactly what Edward did.

How is it nuanced to stated abortion should always be allowed in cases of rape/incest. If I misread your comment, my apologies, but it seems like your equating that question to the once currently being discussed.

I am, yes. It is the "gotcha" question on the choice side. If you agree it should be allowed, then you can't claim all abortions are murder. If you disagree that it should be allowed, you are a monster.

The nuance is where most people are. People quote the "70% are in favor of legal abortions" but ignore the fact that most people believe abortions should be restricted in the second and third trimester. In other words, most people fall short in believing all abortions are murder, but also most people believe that abortions shouldn't be without restrictions.

I don't see the two as equal at all. In the question of rape/incest where is the nuance?

When you ask someone "should abortion be allowed up until birth?" there is an insane amount of nuance.


Now the answer to the former may cause the respondent to either come off as a hypocrite, or a monster, but IMO if you feel like someone should either be required to carry a baby conceived by rape/incest to full term you're a monster. Likewise, if you claim a woman should be forced to give birth to a baby the either isn't going to survive or is going to put the mother at risk you are equally a monster.

Ok, you don't, but it is.

Explain to me how one question that has zero nuance is equal to a question that has literally an endless amount of nuance?

Because I'm not talking about nuance. I'm talking about how the questions are used, and I am done talking about that.

The right- Even pregnancies derived from rape/incest are a gift from god, so the woman should have to endure 9 months of shame and reminders about her ordeal, just to deliver a child that she never wanted and oh! We think the father should have rights! Also the right. Every pregnancy is a gift from god, and if that means mom dies because it is ectopic, or dies in child birth because of major complications, or the baby is non viable and dies during or prior to birth the mother should have to endure it because gods will.


The left- Yeah, rape and incest are bad and abortion should be allowed in these cases. Also, if the pregnancy is never going to live, or the mom is at risk of dying we should abort and protect her.

It is almost as if the answers reveal the character of the respondents. I know which side I would like to be on.

It's depressing how many GOP voices today have decided that yes, actually the Jews are trying to replace white voters with minorities.

Lathum, I have no idea what you think I said, but your creation of strawmen would get ripped to shreds by someone who was anti-abortion.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The abortion issue has never been about abortion. For pro-choice, it's about women being able to control their own body. For anti-abortion, it's about being able to control women's bodies.

There are a number of ways that we can drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country. The anti-abortion crowd does not support them and actively fights against it. Pretty clear they don't really care about abortion.

Also remember that abortion became an issue in the early 20th century when Protestants were concerned about being replaced by non-Anglos. In the late 20th century, it was brought back because religious leaders who ran segregated schools wanted to maintain their tax-exempt status.

Abortion is just a battleground for completely different issues.

It's also a divisive issue that's supporting a group that has no voice, no expectations, and that you don't have to be held accountable to. It's easy for politicians to defend a fetus. If it really was about the fetus' rights then we would have to start talking tax credits and stimulus for pregnant women, we wouldn't be able to sentence pregnant women in crimes along with a host of other issues and questions that come up when you decide to give a fetus rights.

Many of the same states banning abortions or writing trigger bills for abortion are also discussing banning birth control. That says everything.

I agree with this.


I also agree with this.


Thanks.

Thanks, having a great time so far in Philippines. Hot & humid as heck.


It may be semantics but I do not consider myself "neutral" per se. Before I posed the question, I answered the question with my belief which I do believe is the "centrist" view but not neutral.

It is definitely a leading question (not sure about biased though). It is also a question that can put others on the "defensive". But then I ask - so what, again 95% of questions and responses in political and social threads are somehow putting someone on the "defensive". If that is one of the major criteria I'm being called out for, let's call out all others.

On snowflake, I will again contend that was in response to a like comment. Other than one time, I do not get personal & insult first. If you can find examples on the contrary, let me know and I'll concede the point.

TBH, never really thought about it but agree. the pro-life question your brought up can be viewed as a trap question to put someone on the defensive. Regardless, it is a valid question IMO.

I'll answer this question with my caveats and assumptions. I definitely do favor allowing abortions in case of rape and incest up to point of viability (currently at 24 weeks, + or - some) and probably viability++ (new caveat now that i'm thinking about it) if there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. those crazy stories about a frakker imprisoning women).

Thanks I agree.

Look everyone. I propose we end this series of posts about my question and my intentions. I think we can all agree this is a divisive issue and everyone that had a say has spoken their piece.

I am sorry some here think that was an unfair question. I appreciate the support I did get from others that thought it was an "okay" question.

As most of the times, we'll agree to disagree and move on.

Moving on to Philippines (since I'm here). Newly elected Marcos' son as President and Duterte's progeny as VP has been interesting. Duterte has been painted as Trump-like with his nationalism, heavy handedness and (some say) lack of law in pursuing his war on drugs and also his divisive statements.

Marcos won by 59% and closest challenger (former VP) at 28%, so a landslide really. BTW Manny Pacquaio was 3rd at 7%.

I've spoken to 2 locals who voted for Marcos. Basically, they like Duterte's "let's go kill drug dealers and sorry if some innocents get caught in the crossfire" and hope for that to continue. They are tired of the other sides old ways of talking but not doing anything.

They do agree that Philippine should align more with US than with China. I think Biden should take this opportunity for a fresh start and rebuild our alliances here as one more measure vs China.

I have a co-worker from the Philippines that basically says the same thing. According to her you couldn't walk down the street without some drug addict trying to steal your purse.

FWIW, the 2 locals I spoke to were in their mid-late 20's (but am unsure of the older folks).

This seems reverse to the US.

It's golf, but more related to politics.

Has anyone been following the LIV Golf Series controversies?

It looks like Phil Mickelson, Greg Norman, and Sergio Garcia have effectively killed their PGA tour careers or affiliation with the PGA tour by supporting the Saudi government and the creation of this series.

Jack Nicklaus came out today and said they offered him $100 million to do what Norman is doing right now, which is to be the face of the series. Norman was asked about the Khashoggi killing and said, "we've all made mistakes" and then continued to explain away their human rights record by saying he ignores the politics.

Er, I could forget a lot of things for $100M.

Should an Australian golfer really be called out here and stopped from doing "business" with SA? His decision and he seems willing to live with the consequences. His rejecting $100M is not going to do much or shift in the geopolitical situation there.

His easy comeback is why is the US and other countries still buying oil from them?

Getting back to our other discussion thread. Philippines is full of beautiful women. Definitely save up your money and come here and I am sure you'll be successful in dating regular women via local whatever app :). The plus is they do like Americans and they speak the best English in Asia that I've seen in my travels.

But don't sell or use drugs though!

I think the PGA is using the Saudi Arabia thing to eliminate competition. They have a monopoly and would like to keep it that way.

For reasons unrelated to the abortion debate, I think paternity testing should be mandatory in the hospital when a baby is born.

+1

I get what you’re saying but that could lead to a huge uptick of violence against women.

How so?

A study from 2001

No. 1 Cause of Death in Pregnant Women: Murder

and a study from 2021.

Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States

There is a very high amount of unreported rapes(60-80%). Women on the margins are exploited for sex exacerbated by power dynamics(boss/subordinate dynamic. “Sleep with me or lose your job”). Start DNA testing every baby and there’s going to be a lot of people out on the streets

This.

I am fascinated by the Middle Eastern investment in Western sports AKA sports washing. It reminds me of the Million Dollar Man character from the late 80's WWF

That's a good comparison because the Saudi regime actually pays the WWE $50 million PER SHOW to do a few shows there a year and run some pro-Saudi propaganda. That's resulted in long-ago retired wrestlers showing up just for those shows for a huge payday (including Goldberg, which is his real last name...). And womens wrestling where the women have to be covered head to toe. And one time the Saudis had some disagreement with Vince McMahon and wouldn't let the wrestlers' plane leave for a while. Fortunately they weren't kidnapped and beheaded. Also one of the Saudi princes demanded that former WWE champion Yokozuna be on the first show - unfortunately he died in 2000, so the WWE just sent another fat guy who vaguely looked like Yokozuna, and apparently that was acceptable.

The combined weirdness of pro wrestling and Saudi Arabia is pretty compelling stuff.

There's a storyline in there somewhere. Greg Norman as the elder babyface finally turning heel for money. Phil has fallen on hard times with some gambling debts and join the heel money faction.

Cawthorn is in serious trouble in the NC primary. He's gaining ground, but unless it picks up he's projected to fall short and both are above 30% so no runoff.

Hopefully one nutcase gone then

No kink shaming please

Are you referring to the (pretty innocent) gay/bi videos, or the multiple credible accounts of sexual assault?

Anyway, Cawthorn's a nutcase due to his repeating of standard QAnon claims, even if he's disavowed Q publicly.

when you remove all the warts what it boils down to is Cawthorn is a fool who isn't qualified to hold the office. Voters realized that. Gives me at least a shred of hope for the party

I actually was referencing the fact that he is clearly a "summer" complexion, yet his choice of lingerie was more along the lines of what a "winter" skin tone should wear.....If you're going to be a freak, at least do it in good taste. :cool:

Really? Seems to me the lesson is you can say whatever you like about Dems, but risk damaging the GOP and the party will gut you and leave you on the side of the road.

Kind of the impression I got too, it was all fun and forgiveness until he mentioned the coke orgies, still, his ouster may serve as a cautionary tale for some in not so safe seats to dial it back.

Let's be honest though, it really boils down to the voters growing weary of his brand of politician and realizing that while their rhetoric may be entertaining, they are probably less effective in getting stuff done than anyone in Washington. And that is saying a lot.