Presidential power

[burrrton]

ID, you need to provide links to where you're getting your information.

I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I'm just saying asking everyone to depend on your interpretation isn't convincing, especially when "tariffs are economically painful" isn't a particularly controversial statement among economists.

[idhawkman]

ID, you need to provide links to where you're getting your information.

I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I'm just saying asking everyone to depend on your interpretation isn't convincing, especially when "tariffs are economically painful" isn't a particularly controversial statement among economists.

No worries Burrton. I just googled "U.S. Import prices fell in May" and got a whole page of results. Here's the first result I got which pretty much says the exact same thing I posted.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/13/us-import-prices-post-the-largest-drop-in-5-months.html

CNBC is not a conservative resource so there is no spin in this to make it look better for Trump. If anything it would be skewed the other way.

Here's a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics actual report and has some good historic info in it too.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ximpim.nr0.htm

[idhawkman]

Wow, look at the market go up after that tweet from the President. Added to the anticipated rate cuts by the feds and we are soaring.

"@realDonaldTrump: Had a good telephone conversation with President Xi of China. We will be having an extended meeting next week at the G-20 in Japan. Our respective teams will begin talks prior to our meeting."

Could be a huge dagger for the dem hopefuls if these two things happen.

[burrrton]

Thanks, ID- I'll take a look.

[idhawkman]

THE biggest power the president has is the ability to appoint federal judges. Who'd of Thunk it that the 9th circuit would side against the pro-abortion group in a recent decision just a couple months ago. I guess the left may have to start looking for a new circuit to start shopping their suits in.

[c_hawkbob]

I object to the term "pro abortion".

It is entirely possible (and is the case with myself) to be anti abortion on a personal level and still recognize the sanctity of a woman's right to determine the course of her life based on her particular set of circumstances. No two cases are exactly the same.

Not all women facing such a choice have the male partner in the situation asserting their absolute willingness to raise the baby, either as a dedicated monogamous life partner, a shared responsibility separately or as a single father if the woman wanted to move on with her life after giving birth. My wife wanted no part of raising a family and had had her tubes litigated before we met to prevent exactly that but wound up pregnant anyway. I gave her exactly those choices and now we're happy grandparents.

Other women don't have such options and I respect their right to choose for themselves while maintaining that I'd never allow it on a personal level. I am anti abortion but pro choice.

Which a lot less hypocritical than "pro lifers" that are only interested in making sure the baby comes out of the womb but then are staunchly against the social programs that would feed and nurture and educate that child and give it a reasonable chance at a healthy productive life. That's not pro life, that's pro assertion of your beliefs on every other person in the country. That's not what freedom is.

[RiverDog]

Idahawk is the only one that's throwing around the term "pro abortion" and is doing so in order to dramatize his argument. The widely accepted term is "pro choice".

I, too, come down in the middle of the abortion debate. There has to be a point at which the fetus is no longer a part of the mother's body but rather an independent human being with independent rights. However, there are some on the far right, particularly in the case of the Alabama legislature, that are virtually outlawing abortion all together. IMO a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy out to term but that choice should only be allowed within a reasonable window after becoming aware of her pregnancy.

One AL state senator claims that window to be 7-10 days, which is completely unreasonable. In many cases, that would be barely enough time to contact the father, other family members, a counselor, her employer, etc. IMO that window should be in terms of months, not days or weeks.

[c_hawkbob]

Idahawk is the only one that's throwing around the term "pro abortion" and is doing so in order to dramatize his argument. The widely accepted term is "pro choice".

Agreed, he's the only person I've seen use that description here.

I, too, come down in the middle of the abortion debate. There has to be a point at which the fetus is no longer a part of the mother's body but rather an independent human being with independent rights. However, there are some on the far right, particularly in the case of the Alabama legislature, that are virtually outlawing abortion all together. IMO a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy out to term but that choice should only be allowed within a reasonable window after becoming aware of her pregnancy.

One AL state senator claims that window to be 7-10 days, which is completely unreasonable. In many cases, that would be barely enough time to contact the father, other family members, a counselor, her employer, etc. IMO that window should be in terms of months, not days or weeks.

Again, agreed, with the caveat that the man in the relationship, be he able and willing, should have some say in the matter as well. I'd have hated it if my wife had decided to terminate my daughter's pregnancy even after I'd expressed my willingness to raise her alone if needs be.

[RiverDog]

Again, agreed, with the caveat that the man in the relationship, be he able and willing, should have some say in the matter as well. I'd have hated it if my wife had decided to terminate my daughter's pregnancy even after I'd expressed my willingness to raise her alone if needs be.

Damn, how is it that we suddenly agree on everything?

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't consider the term pro-choice accurate given the choice was made before they had relations. I don't see the need to clean up the word abortion because people don't like the sound of it. If you're pro abortion, then just say it. You believe women should be able to have abortions if they don't wan the fertilized egg in them. I'm generally pro abortion if early enough. My only concerns are late term abortions and the sale of the residual material from abortions. I think it would be pretty morally problematic if women were getting pregnant for the sole purpose of donating fetal stem cells for medical technology. Then again I think fertility clinics already do this.

If a woman wants an abortion, especially in the case of rape or incest, then she should by all means do so. No use having a child she doesn't want, especially if it's within the first two or three months. Why would you force someone to have a child they don't want? Makes no sense.

[RiverDog]

I don't consider the term pro-choice accurate given the choice was made before they had relations. I don't see the need to clean up the word abortion because people don't like the sound of it. If you're pro abortion, then just say it.

People "choose" to have sex. They don't necessarily choose to get pregnant. Big difference.

The issue was how the term was used to describe a person's opinion. You can be morally against abortion for yourself or your family while still recognizing a woman's right to choose. Idahawk was using the term to dramatize his argument, and in doing so, was painting everyone on the opposite side of his position with one brush stroke.

I'm generally pro abortion if early enough. My only concerns are late term abortions and the sale of the residual material from abortions. I think it would be pretty morally problematic if women were getting pregnant for the sole purpose of donating fetal stem cells for medical technology. Then again I think fertility clinics already do this.

If a woman wants an abortion, especially in the case of rape or incest, then she should by all means do so. No use having a child she doesn't want, especially if it's within the first two or three months. Why would you force something to have a child they don't want? Makes no sense.

Agreed if you strike the word "only" from your statement on late term abortions. At some undetermined point well before birth, that fetus becomes a human being and has a right to life.

[Aseahawkfan]

People "choose" to have sex. They don't necessarily choose to get pregnant. Big difference.

No, not a big difference. Sex is the primary way women get pregnant. You know the risk before you do it. You choose to risk the consequences for the pleasure. It's one of the major reasons why so many parents tell their children to wait to have sex until they can handle the responsibility of the consequences. Absent birth control, there is a good chance of getting a girl pregnant when having sex. It's why we society developed so many rules about sex until the science of birth control obviated so many of the old world methods of managing pregnancy. I never myself had sex with a woman without knowing full well the risk and what I would have to do if my number came up. I in fact had my number come up one time and escaped the consequences by chance, then went celibate for a lot of years given it occurred with birth control in place. That consequence is stressful when you don't want it. It changes your entire life.

The issue was how the term was used to describe a person's opinion. You can be morally against abortion for yourself or your family while still recognizing a woman's right to choose. Idahawk was using the term to dramatize his argument, and in doing so, was painting everyone on the opposite side of his position with one brush stroke.

I can understand that. I voted for legalization of marijuana, but I'd never touch the stuff myself. I think the negative effects of marijuana will be similar to smoking once we see long-term use over an entire society. We will see in time. I stay away from crap like that and I don't even drink alcohol. I'd outlaw them if we could do it reasonably, but humans are selfish creatures. They want to keep doing it regardless of the aggregate consequences. So what can you do without creating a very intrusive, unpleasant society.

Agreed if you strike the word "only" from your statement on late term abortions. At some undetermined point well before birth, that fetus becomes a human being and has a right to life.

I have no idea where you draw that line. Medical fact is that barring genetic or environmental factors is American doctors have a 95% chance or possibly greater of bringing a child from conception into the world. Most of the time that would be sufficient to call something human life. A 95% chance of something living from conception to birth is nearly as good as it gets barring a few percentage points. Where we draw that line is very hard to determine.

[RiverDog]

People "choose" to have sex. They don't necessarily choose to get pregnant. Big difference.

No, not a big difference. Sex is the primary way women get pregnant. You know the risk before you do it. You choose to risk the consequences for the pleasure.

Easier said than done. Passion and hormones many times win the battle vs. logic. I'm not sure how many of us would be here if our parents logic won out over their passion. Additionally, j/b you choose to have sex doesn't mean you choose to get pregnant/cause a pregnancy. All it means is that you chose, perhaps unwisely, to take a chance.

Agreed if you strike the word "only" from your statement on late term abortions. At some undetermined point well before birth, that fetus becomes a human being and has a right to life.

I have no idea where you draw that line. Medical fact is that barring genetic or environmental factors is American doctors have a 95% chance or possibly greater of bringing a child from conception into the world. Most of the time that would be sufficient to call something human life. A 95% chance of something living from conception to birth is nearly as good as it gets barring a few percentage points. Where we draw that line is very hard to determine.

I don't know where to draw that line, either. If you draw it at 50% survival for premature births, it could be as early as 22 weeks, or just over halfway into a pregnancy. That's about 5 months from conception, which to me would suffice as sufficient time for a woman and/or family to make a decision.

[Aseahawkfan]

Easier said than done. Passion and hormones many times win the battle vs. logic. I'm not sure how many of us would be here if our parents logic won out over their passion. Additionally, j/b you choose to have sex doesn't mean you choose to get pregnant/cause a pregnancy. All it means is that you chose, perhaps unwisely, to take a chance.

Are men allowed to say, "My bad. I didn't mean for that to happen.I'm out." Not from what I've seen or has the law changed?

I don't know about you, but if the woman decides to have the child I expect the man to help take care of it. I hold men to that standard. I wonder how many men do.

In the interest of legal equality, do men have the opportunity to legally abort a child a woman chooses to have if they don't want it? I think given the option women have, men should have the same option to legally abort the child without the woman's consent. So they have control over their life as well. I hope the law eventually reflects it. At the moment it seems to be up to the woman because it's her body, but the man has no say and will pay if she decides to keep it. That is not a particularly equal law.

That is probably one of my few concerns with abortion.

[RiverDog]

Easier said than done. Passion and hormones many times win the battle vs. logic. I'm not sure how many of us would be here if our parents logic won out over their passion. Additionally, j/b you choose to have sex doesn't mean you choose to get pregnant/cause a pregnancy. All it means is that you chose, perhaps unwisely, to take a chance.

Are men allowed to say, "My bad. I didn't mean for that to happen.I'm out." Not from what I've seen or has the law changed?

I don't know about you, but if the woman decides to have the child I expect the man to help take care of it. I hold men to that standard. I wonder how many men do.

In the interest of legal equality, do men have the opportunity to legally abort a child a woman chooses to have if they don't want it? I think given the option women have, men should have the same option to legally abort the child without the woman's consent. So they have control over their life as well. I hope the law eventually reflects it. At the moment it seems to be up to the woman because it's her body, but the man has no say and will pay if she decides to keep it. That is not a particularly equal law.

That is probably one of my few concerns with abortion.

I wasn't speaking of just the man's passions. Both often times throw caution to the wind in the heat of the moment, although I do agree that it's generally the male that's the more aggressive in those types of situations, or at least that's been my experience.

That's a good question about the potential father's rights in an abortion question, but I would imagine there would be a problem on positive ID of the father at an early stage abortion, ie before 20 weeks. Additionally, we get back to the original question of when does the fetus stop being an extension of the woman's body. But like you say, that's a rather minor point in the larger scheme of things.

[idhawkman]

I object to the term "pro abortion".

It is entirely possible (and is the case with myself) to be anti abortion on a personal level and still recognize the sanctity of a woman's right to determine the course of her life based on her particular set of circumstances. No two cases are exactly the same.

Not all women facing such a choice have the male partner in the situation asserting their absolute willingness to raise the baby, either as a dedicated monogamous life partner, a shared responsibility separately or as a single father if the woman wanted to move on with her life after giving birth. My wife wanted no part of raising a family and had had her tubes litigated before we met to prevent exactly that but wound up pregnant anyway. I gave her exactly those choices and now we're happy grandparents.

Other women don't have such options and I respect their right to choose for themselves while maintaining that I'd never allow it on a personal level. I am anti abortion but pro choice.

Which a lot less hypocritical than "pro lifers" that are only interested in making sure the baby comes out of the womb but then are staunchly against the social programs that would feed and nurture and educate that child and give it a reasonable chance at a healthy productive life. That's not pro life, that's pro assertion of your beliefs on every other person in the country. That's not what freedom is.

Yes, women have some tough choices. Unfortunately, this argument that you've thrown up has nothing to do with the case. Its not about a single woman and her situation. It is about an organization that is pro-abortion, not choice.

This is a quote from the article on the subject. NOTE: The article calls it abortion and not Choice, too.

But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco called the rules a "reasonable" interpretation of a federal law that prohibits taxpayer-funded health clinics from advocating, encouraging or promoting abortion.

[idhawkman]

Idahawk is the only one that's throwing around the term "pro abortion" and is doing so in order to dramatize his argument. The widely accepted term is "pro choice".

I, too, come down in the middle of the abortion debate. There has to be a point at which the fetus is no longer a part of the mother's body but rather an independent human being with independent rights. However, there are some on the far right, particularly in the case of the Alabama legislature, that are virtually outlawing abortion all together. IMO a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy out to term but that choice should only be allowed within a reasonable window after becoming aware of her pregnancy.

One AL state senator claims that window to be 7-10 days, which is completely unreasonable. In many cases, that would be barely enough time to contact the father, other family members, a counselor, her employer, etc. IMO that window should be in terms of months, not days or weeks.

You act like the mother didn't have a choice to NOT HAVE SEX in the first place. Now I know you will throw up rape and incest, etc but in those cases you don't have to "contact the father, other family members, a counselor, her employer, etc." She should already know what her actions would be after those instances.

[idhawkman]

At some undetermined point well before birth, that fetus becomes a human being and has a right to life.

What is that time? That's the debate. We all know when life ends so why can't we use the same argument for when it begins?

[burrrton]

Idahawk is the only one that's throwing around the term "pro abortion" and is doing so in order to dramatize his argument.

It is (intentionally) politically charged, but it's not as if it's hard to find prominent activists and pols who heap adulation on the procedure.

It's become as ghoulish in that direction as the Alabama bill has become in the other.

IMO a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy out to term but that choice should only be allowed within a reasonable window after becoming aware of her pregnancy.

That kind of sensible, balanced opinion will get you labeled a far-right Nazi wingnut in today's Democrat party (also, I agree with you).

[burrrton]

Which a lot less hypocritical than "pro lifers" that are only interested in making sure the baby comes out of the womb but then are staunchly against the social programs that would feed and nurture and educate that child and give it a reasonable chance at a healthy productive life.

Your implicit assumption there is that all the "social programs" being proposed are good for either the child or society in general. Which program (or modification to an existing program?) are you specifically referring to?

[burrrton]

What is that time? That's the debate.

Yup. And it's not an easy question to answer with certainty (if it's possible at all).

We all know when life ends so why can't we use the same argument for when it begins?

Because you'll never convince me that a 3-cell zygote deserves the same protections as a full-term baby.

I think there's a stronger logical argument for the former over the latter, but the 'personhood begins at conception' (for lack of a better description) argument is nearly as preposterous as 'personhood doesn't begin until birth'.

[RiverDog]

It is (intentionally) politically charged, but it's not as if it's hard to find prominent activists and pols who heap adulation on the procedure.

It's become as ghoulish in that direction as the Alabama bill has become in the other.

One of the problems with this debate is the caustic terminology that both sides are using, and labeling anyone that is pro choice as pro abortion is one of those terms, which is why I joined Cbob in calling it out. 100% agree with your second sentence.

IMO a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy out to term but that choice should only be allowed within a reasonable window after becoming aware of her pregnancy.

That kind of sensible, balanced opinion will get you labeled a far-right Nazi wingnut in today's Democrat party (also, I agree with you).

And although perhaps a little less likely, there are extremists in the Republican party that would call me a baby killer for expressing such a POV.

The abortion issue has been relatively quiet for several decades, but lately it's been foisted upon us again. It's just one more thing that highlights how divided this country has become.

[Hawktawk]

Having paid for one as a scared and frankly gutless morally challenged 19 year old kid in 78 I know a lot more about this than I wish I did. I saw the girl 13 years later and she looked right through me like I was dead. I had to write a song called silent tears over the next couple of days to be able to sleep. All that said a majority of Americans support it in some form and these draconian measures by old white men will cement the party’s doom among women. Horrible topic .

[burrrton]

And although perhaps a little less likely, there are extremists in the Republican party that would call me a baby killer for expressing such a POV.

Also true and fair to point out. However, "safe, legal, and rare" won't get you railroaded out of the Republican primary- supporting any limitations at all sure as s*** will eliminate you from consideration in the Dem party in 2019.

[burrrton]

All that said a majority of Americans support it in some form and these draconian measures by old white men will cement the party’s doom among women.

Tawk, take a look at the polling on abortion. Also maybe take a look at what's allowed throughout the rest of the western world.

The "old white men" BS only flies with the far-left nuts. The rest of the country supports many of the measures being taken to reign in the Left's worst impulses (and note: I'm *not* defending the Alabama bill, which is just some political stunt they know won't survive the courts).

[RiverDog]

All that said a majority of Americans support it in some form and these draconian measures by old white men will cement the party’s doom among women.

Tawk, take a look at the polling on abortion. Also maybe take a look at what's allowed throughout the rest of the western world.

The "old white men" BS only flies with the far-left nuts. The rest of the country supports many of the measures being taken to reign in the Left's worst impulses (and note: I'm *not* defending the Alabama bill, which is just some political stunt they know won't survive the courts).

The "old white men" comment might have been inappropriate, but his point about the Republicans embracing this issue is valid. To some degree, the Republicans brought this issue on themselves. Alabama is not the only state that passed new restrictions on the procedure. Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri all passed new laws placing restrictions that does not allow for exceptions due to rape or incest. Kentucky and Georgia have passed laws with increased restrictions.

Republicans control all those legislatures. Combined with SCOTUS's move to the right, these new, more restrictive laws have re-ignited the debate and since, as you noted, the majority of people are for some form of abortion, the R's are running a significant risk of alienating women. It's a losing issue for R's. They best let sleeping dogs lay.

[burrrton]

To some degree, the Republicans brought this issue on themselves.

Brought what on themselves? "This issue" might win them back the House if Dems can't reel it in.

It's a losing issue for R's.

On the overly-restrictive bills, yes. That's only in a handful of places, and the more ridiculous ones will go absolutely *nowhere* and be soon forgotten.

More generally, though, public opinion on abortion aligns more closely with Rs, and it's not close.

[RiverDog]

Brought what on themselves? "This issue" might win them back the House if Dems can't reel it in.

More generally, though, public opinion on abortion aligns more closely with Rs, and it's not close.

Although technically you may be correct as far as which position aligns with the overall public attitude, it's a hot button issue for women, especially younger women of child bearing age, than it is with men and older women. The R's constituency is much less passionate about it:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ab ... icans-now/

One of the problems for Dems in 2016 is that they couldn't get the younger voters, the ones more likely to vote Democratic, to turn out. An abortion issue could be the key to increasing voter turnout, which probably explains why the Dem candidates are giving it so much attention.

[burrrton]

Although technically you may be correct as far as which position aligns with the overall public attitude, it's a hot button issue for women, especially younger women of child bearing age, than it is with men and older women.

I agree it's a hot-button issue with women, but overall, I think (iirc) even among women, R's positions on abortion align much more closely.

An abortion issue could be the key to increasing voter turnout, which probably explains why the Dem candidates are giving it so much attention.

Could be. Not sure it will work, but good point.

[RiverDog]

I agree it's a hot-button issue with women, but overall, I think (iirc) even among women, R's positions on abortion align much more closely.

That could be, but most voters don't compare position statements of various candidates in a whole lot of detail. The commonly held perception is that the D's are much less of a threat to compromise a woman's right to choose than the R's are, so IMO the R's would be well advised to steer clear of it as much as they can.

No matter who wins the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Dem candidate will wave that Alabama law around like a red cape in front of a bull and try as much as they can to link Trump to it. If I were their campaign manager, I know that's a tactic I'd use.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wasn't speaking of just the man's passions. Both often times throw caution to the wind in the heat of the moment, although I do agree that it's generally the male that's the more aggressive in those types of situations, or at least that's been my experience.

That's a good question about the potential father's rights in an abortion question, but I would imagine there would be a problem on positive ID of the father at an early stage abortion, ie before 20 weeks. Additionally, we get back to the original question of when does the fetus stop being an extension of the woman's body. But like you say, that's a rather minor point in the larger scheme of things.

I want legal equality where the man can abort the child too if he doesn't like the mother and feels he made a mistake. If we're going to have these low moral expectations of women in the modern day, then we need to ensure we lower the expectations for men as well legally.

When I was raised up, it was made quite clear to me that if I slept with a woman and knocked her up (my choice), I had to take care of the child. It was the moral expectation I was raised with. You chose to have premarital sex. This was the risk. You made her pregnant, now you have to take care of her and the child. I"m surprised you weren't raised with a similar moral ideal given your age.

Well, if women no longer want to follow the moral ideal that choosing to have premarital sex has possible life-altering consequences they want to be able to rid themselves of utilizing modern science, then the law should reflect this for males as well absent female consent. In essence, males should not have their future held in the hands of a woman choosing to keep a child they don't want. They should be able to legally abort it without the consent of the female and without the law showing prejudice or bias as it does now.

That's what I would like to see next on the agenda. Let's go all in on gender equality, see what happens.

The few times I have debated this idea with women questioning the idea of moral equality, there seems to be objections. I've tried to explain males didn't come up with the sexual rules they applied in the past to enslave women as the narrative seems to be with feminists, but to protect them as well as themselves from the severe financial and life consequences of unintended pregnancy. I figure if women want things a certain way, then men should protect themselves as well ensuring the right to legally abort a child if they are not ready to take care of it or do not like the choice of mother. Let's have that gender equality and low morality continue for both genders. It's the least we can do.

[Aseahawkfan]

That could be, but most voters don't compare position statements of various candidates in a whole lot of detail. The commonly held perception is that the D's are much less of a threat to compromise a woman's right to choose than the R's are, so IMO the R's would be well advised to steer clear of it as much as they can.

No matter who wins the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Dem candidate will wave that Alabama law around like a red cape in front of a bull and try as much as they can to link Trump to it. If I were their campaign manager, I know that's a tactic I'd use.

Dems and left will criticize Trump for anything he does. Even after he pulled back on the Iran attack due to loss of life, I was reading articles by some Democrat-left supporters criticizing him for not launching the attack. I had to laugh at that. This environment is so nuts. Democrat supporters criticizing a Republican president for not committing an act of war is the height of this hypocritical, nutty political environment we're in. Where does a sensible person have to go when neither party is acting in a consistent, intelligent, logical fashion? I don't know.

Trump's never been warlike. I wasn't surprised by his reaction. Everyone wants to paint the guy as some heartless maniac. He isn't. He doesn't like war. He doesn't really like harming people. He has his flaws, but homicidal maniac isn't one of them. I hope he stays that way and doesn't let the warhawks push him into war with Iran.

[RiverDog]

I wasn't speaking of just the man's passions. Both often times throw caution to the wind in the heat of the moment, although I do agree that it's generally the male that's the more aggressive in those types of situations, or at least that's been my experience.

That's a good question about the potential father's rights in an abortion question, but I would imagine there would be a problem on positive ID of the father at an early stage abortion, ie before 20 weeks. Additionally, we get back to the original question of when does the fetus stop being an extension of the woman's body. But like you say, that's a rather minor point in the larger scheme of things.

I want legal equality where the man can abort the child too if he doesn't like the mother and feels he made a mistake. If we're going to have these low moral expectations of women in the modern day, then we need to ensure we lower the expectations for men as well legally.

When I was raised up, it was made quite clear to me that if I slept with a woman and knocked her up (my choice), I had to take care of the child. It was the moral expectation I was raised with. You chose to have premarital sex. This was the risk. You made her pregnant, now you have to take care of her and the child. I"m surprised you weren't raised with a similar moral ideal given your age.

I'm not sure what it is that I said that caused you to think that I felt that it wasn't the man's responsibility to care for an illegitimate child, but you're wrong. I've always held the belief that it's a man's responsibility to at least financially support a child that he helped bring into this world. But I will admit that in the casual, one night stands that I held the opinion that it was primarily the woman's responsibility to avoid a pregnancy simply because of the ease of obtaining birth control pills.

As far as a man's rights goes regarding abortion decisions, that's a sticky question. In a perfect world, yes, I would agree that the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is a 50/50 proposition, especially when it occurs in an extended relationship. But a more casual relationship? I can understand why a single woman, perhaps with a career she wants to pursue, might not want to endure a 9 month pregnancy even if she were going to give up all her paternal rights.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not sure what it is that I said that caused you to think that I felt that it wasn't the man's responsibility to care for an illegitimate child, but you're wrong. I've always held the belief that it's a man's responsibility to at least financially support a child that he helped bring into this world. But I will admit that in the casual, one night stands that I held the opinion that it was primarily the woman's responsibility to avoid a pregnancy simply because of the ease of obtaining birth control pills.

I was thinking you were raised with that value as were most of us older men. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the female is being held to a lower moral standard for her behavior as part of the feminist movement while the male is expected to continue to fulfill his gender role as provider regardless of what decision the female makes. That seems like an unfair legal bias in society. If a woman can just jettison the child absent male involvement, then let the man legally do the same. How many men have ended up with children they did not want with a poorly chosen woman due to the legal system saddling them with the responsibility of their poor or drug-induced choices? Gender equality needs to be a two way street if we're tossing out gender roles.

As far as a man's rights goes regarding abortion decisions, that's a sticky question. In a perfect world, yes, I would agree that the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is a 50/50 proposition, especially when it occurs in an extended relationship. But a more casual relationship? I can understand why a single woman, perhaps with a career she wants to pursue, might not want to endure a 9 month pregnancy even if she were going to give up all her paternal rights.

This is not 50/50. This is 100% each person making their decision. The woman has 100% control of her body under the law, the man should have the same. This is as has been argued each individual exercising their individual right to choose when to take on the responsibility of having a child and to choose the person they will have that responsibility with. Not real sticky if we look at it through the lense of legal equity. If a woman has the option to abort a child, the man should have the option to legally abort it for the exact same reasons a woman might abort.

I would like to see legal equality in this area. That is what I would like to see as the natural next step in this change in gender roles and moral standards reflected in the law.

[burrrton]

No matter who wins the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Dem candidate will wave that Alabama law around like a red cape in front of a bull and try as much as they can to link Trump to it.

Yep, and Trump's gonna be hammering home all the support for 3rd-trimester abortion among the Dems. Want to guess which one will align more closely with voters' values (according to polls, anyway)?

[RiverDog]

No matter who wins the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Dem candidate will wave that Alabama law around like a red cape in front of a bull and try as much as they can to link Trump to it.

Yep, and Trump's gonna be hammering home all the support for 3rd-trimester abortion among the Dems. Want to guess which one will align more closely with voters' values (according to polls, anyway)?

Like I said, it doesn't matter who's position aligns most closely with the majority of people. No prospective undecided voter is going to lay two position papers down side-by-side, read and say "Yea, by God, the Republicans position is the most reasonable, so I'm going to vote for Trump." IMO what's a more likely result of an open debate on abortion is that it's going to draw out more female voters that have already made up their minds as to which party represents a threat to their right to choose that might otherwise have stayed home, and the more women the Dems get out, the more likely they are to win.

That's why I contend that the R's would be well advised to duck the abortion issue as much as they can. They aren't going to change any Dem votes to Trump and it's not going to motivate their base enough to compensate what it would do for the Dem's base.

[burrrton]

They aren't going to change any Dem votes to Trump and it's not going to motivate their base enough to compensate what it would do for the Dem's base.

I agree with the first part, but I think you're *vastly* underestimating the motivating effect the issue will have on the R side.

We're not talking about comparing position papers, either- if we assume equal competence getting each side's message out, I think this is a winning issue for Rs. The Dems are taking the more extreme position, a position that would have been considered unthinkable just a few years ago (Alabama bill aside- I don't know any prominent Republican who's expressed support for such nuttiness).

[RiverDog]

They aren't going to change any Dem votes to Trump and it's not going to motivate their base enough to compensate what it would do for the Dem's base.

I agree with the first part, but I think you're *vastly* underestimating the motivating effect the issue will have on the R side.

We're not talking about comparing position papers, either- if we assume equal competence getting each side's message out, I think this is a winning issue for Rs. The Dems are taking the more extreme position, a position that would have been considered unthinkable just a few years ago (Alabama bill aside- I don't know any prominent Republican who's expressed support for such nuttiness).

The factor that you're overlooking is the demographics of the R constituency vs. that of the D's. The R's are primarily males while the Dems claim the majority of females. Speaking from experience, the abortion issue, in general, is a lot more of a hot button topic with women that it is men. Sure, there's going to be a fair number of conservative women, particularly in the evangelical community, of whom the abortion issue is near and dear to their hearts, but the net effect of an open debate almost certainly would favor the pro choice side.

I also question either side's ability to "get their message out." If an issue can't be boiled down to a 15 or 30 second sound bite, the average Joe and the average Mary aren't going to be paying attention. That's why I don't think that communicating an understandable stance on a complicated issue such as abortion is possible for either side. Most people have already made up their minds that the R's are pro life and the D's are pro choice.

That's why all the Dems can't wait to grab the mike and throw in their 2 cents. Even the weird Uncle Joe, who normally wouldn't want to talk about an issue he's flip flopped on, has unzipped his fly.

[burrrton]

Speaking from experience, the abortion issue, in general, is a lot more of a hot button topic with women that it is men.

True, but even women are overwhelmingly against late-term abortions.

Sure, there's going to be a fair number of conservative women, particularly in the evangelical community, of whom the abortion issue is near and dear to their hearts, but the net effect of an open debate almost certainly would favor the pro choice side.

That isn't clear *at all*. See above.

I don't feel like debating this endlessly because we're both guessing. I just don't think the Dems have a winning message on abortion when Dem candidates are being forced to take extreme, even horrifying, positions on the matter, while R candidates are taking decidedly more moderate, mainstream stances.

That's why I don't think that communicating an understandable stance on a complicated issue such as abortion is possible for either side. Most people have already made up their minds that the R's are pro life and the D's are pro choice.

That's true, and generally speaking, it's accurate. The rubber meets the road, though, at exactly what concessions(?) each side is willing to allow, and it doesn't take more than 30 seconds to show Dem candidates implicitly endorsing abortion up to the time of birth (at which point it is inarguably *infanticide*, and will have been so for many months), while I don't know of any prominent Republican that endorses Alabama-bill-like restrictions.

[idhawkman]

Because you'll never convince me that a 3-cell zygote deserves the same protections as a full-term baby.

I think there's a stronger logical argument for the former over the latter, but the 'personhood begins at conception' (for lack of a better description) argument is nearly as preposterous as 'personhood doesn't begin until birth'.

There's a whole lot more there than 3 cells when the first heart beat starts. I would prefer it at conception but we should be able to agree that if life ends when the heartbeat stops then it most certainly begins when the heartbeat starts.