is Trumpism helping or harming the position of Christianity in America?

[No Excuses]

47 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

This is such an ignorant answer. The "anti-abortion crowd" is not so monolithic. Some of the people historically on point for women's rights and temperance have been Christians. It is not as much as used to be, I admit that. But don't believe everything you read or hear in your circles of likeminded folks.

 

Safe to say, legitimate policies that would help working women not consider the abortion route are almost completely absent among groups who consider themselves "pro-life".

 

Contraception access. Nope.

 

Sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nope.

 

Supporting publicly funded (charity or governmental) care options for mothers and newborns. Nope.

 

Pre-K education. Nope.

 

Paid maternity (or even paternity) leave laws. Nope.

 

Nothing that legitimately helps pregnant women is on the agenda. 

 

But plenty of money and resources diverted towards fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers that masquerade as health clinics and give women absolutely horrible advice.

 

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/crisis-pregnancy-centers

 

You don't need me to quote you the views of prominent pro-life organizations and influencers on working, professional women or sexual liberation. 

[Zguy28]

Quote

Safe to say, legitimate policies that would help working women not consider the abortion route are almost completely absent among groups who consider themselves "pro-life".

 

Contraception access. Nope.

Many reject contraception on the grounds that it is perpetuates the mindset that its morally right to consider children as unwanted, which is the thinking that leads to abortion. However, that doesn't really help you, because your statement appears to be factually unfounded.

 

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/you-can-be-pro-life-and-pro.html

 

Quote

Sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nope.

Nobody I know personally is against sex ed, except if it promotes abortion or is given to kids too young (such as 8 year olds).

 

Quote

Supporting publicly funded (charity or governmental) care options for mothers and newborns. Nope.

Google "orphan care" and tell me the demographics of the organizations that show up.

 

Quote

Pre-K education. Nope.

Huh?

 

Quote

Paid maternity (or even paternity) leave laws. Nope.

Haven't women had paid maternity leave for decades?

 

Quote

 

Nothing that legitimately helps pregnant women is on the agenda. 

 

But plenty of money and resources diverted towards fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers that masquerade as health clinics and give women absolutely horrible advice.

 

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/crisis-pregnancy-centers

 

I know folks who run some these centers. You're pretty far from the truth.

See, I have a link too:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/crisis-pregnancy-centers-in-crisis/article/2009771

 

Quote

You don't need me to quote you the views of prominent pro-life organizations and influencers on working, professional women or sexual liberation. 

Go for it if it makes you feel better. But it will ultimately be futile since we have a fundamental different view of what is moral.

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Safe to say, legitimate policies that would help working women not consider the abortion route are almost completely absent among groups who consider themselves "pro-life".

 

Contraception access. Nope.

 

Sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nope.

 

Supporting publicly funded (charity or governmental) care options for mothers and newborns. Nope.

 

Pre-K education. Nope.

 

Paid maternity (or even paternity) leave laws. Nope.

 

Nothing that legitimately helps pregnant women is on the agenda. 

 

But plenty of money and resources diverted towards fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers that masquerade as health clinics and give women absolutely horrible advice.

 

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/crisis-pregnancy-centers

 

You don't need me to quote you the views of prominent pro-life organizations and influencers on working, professional women or sexual liberation. 

 

I'm pro-choice... but not particularly happily or enthusiastically so....   I'm very conflicted emotionally on the matter, and very much support policies that would reduce the number of abortions that women choose to have (without restricting access or misleading/bullying them away from abortions)

 

On the other hand, you find it easiest to lump everyone that that is anti-abortion into a simple clean easy cartoonish bucket.   Do so, if you would like... but it is too easy and cheap.  

 

its better to assume that SOME people actually just plain care deeply about this matter...  and for reasons other than just being mean-spirited snarling hypocrites.        

[No Excuses]

19 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

I'm pro-choice... but not particularly happily or enthusiastically so....   I'm very conflicted emotionally on the matter, and very much support policies that would reduce the number of abortions that women choose to have (without restricting access or misleading/bullying them away from abortions)

 

On the other hand, you find it easiest to lump everyone that that is anti-abortion into a simple clean easy cartoonish bucket.   Do so, if you would like... but it is too easy and cheap.  

 

its better to assume that SOME people actually just plain care deeply about this matter...  and for reasons other than just being mean-spirited snarling hypocrites.        

 

It's a generalization for sure. But it very clearly reflects in the priorities and agendas of anti-abortion groups and advocates. There is an active hostility towards the needs of working women, and anti-abortion activism is very closely tied towards pushing junk like abstinence only education, and ensuring that women do not have access to contraception or basic healthcare services. 

 

Anyone follow the backlash Kevin Williamson received lately? For those not caught up, Kevin Williamson is one of the most prominent conservative writers in the entire country. In his time at National Review, he argued that women who get abortions should face the death penalty. For some inexplicable reason, he was hired by The Atlantic and then fired two weeks later once they faced backlash.

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/04/23/kevin-williamson-says-he-was-persecuted-abortion-providers-and-patients-face-much-worse/220018

 

And the unanimous conservative response to this was to SIDE with this guy. Because you know, advocating for the death of millions of American women is totally not crazy.

 

But I am the mean spirited one for pointing out what a hellscape the anti-abortion movement is in its view of women and their role in society.

Edited April 24, 2018 by No Excuses

[mcsluggo]

its not a matter of whether you are mean spirited.   but you clearly don;t care if anybody has an actual legit objection to abortions, and are happy to instead point to extreme viewpoints so you can ignore nuanced positions.   

 

it is pretty much the same playbook employed by the specific extremist individuals you cite on the other side     

Edited April 24, 2018 by mcsluggo

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

its not a matter of whether you are mean spirited.   but you clearly don;t care if anybody has an actual legit objection to abortions, and are happy to instead point to extreme viewpoints so you can ignore nuanced positions.   

 

it is pretty much the same playbook employed by the specific extremist individuals you cite on the other side     

 

A person who claimed that women who get abortions should receive the death penalty is by all means widely celebrated in the conservative community.

 

He was a prolific writer for The National Review. Not an "extreme" entity.

 

He was hired by The Atlantic. Not an "extreme" entity.

 

After he was fired, the WSJ gave him a chance to further talk about his dangerous views.

 

This is just one example. And quite honestly, it's super silly that we are even debating this. We are like a few years removed from prominent conservative groups launching mass campaigns to shut down women's access to basic reproductive healthcare services and ensuring that contraception isn't widely available for them.

 

I apologize for pointing out the bat**** extreme views of the mainstream right on women's reproductive healthcare. Apparently I should have taken some kind of ridiculous centrist approach, accounting for people's feelings and not the real world legislative and policy goals that they pursue.

[mcsluggo]

or... you could just consider the fact that SOME people actually view an aborted baby to be an actual human life.   

and that IF you believe that to be the fact, then you will HAVE to have a very very different view on what is an acceptable medical procedure involving that PERSON.   

 

there IS a real and legitimate reason that some people are opposed to abortion.  You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but you are purposely blinding yourself to even the possibility that other people have a legitimate different philosophical viewpoint to yours.  and because you have succeeded in blinding yourself, you are happy with the most simplistic arguments and the association fallacy.   I don't care that you can show me that this person that is anti abortion is also a dick in a bunch of other ways.  I also don't care if LOTS of people that are anti abortion are ALL also dicks in a whole bunch of other ways. 

 

It is ****ing lazy.

 

 

[No Excuses]

Just now, mcsluggo said:

or... you could just consider the fact that SOME people actually view an aborted baby to be an actual human life.   

and that IF you believe that to be the fact, then you will HAVE to have a very very different view on what is an acceptable medical procedure involving that PERSON.   

 

there IS a real and legitimate reason that some people are opposed to abortion.  You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but you are purposely blinding yourself to even the possibility that other people have a legitimate different philosophical viewpoint to yours.  and because you have succeeded in blinding yourself, you are happy with the most simplistic arguments and the association fallacy.   I don't care that you can show me that this person that is anti abortion is also a dick in a bunch of other ways.  I also don't care if LOTS of people that are anti abortion are ALL also dicks in a whole bunch of other ways. 

 

It is ****ing lazy.

 

 

 

Ok dude whatever. Apparently to you, calling for state sponsored murder of women who exercise a constitutional right is apparently well within reasonable discourse.

 

You want to entertain the views of people who are pro-birth and nothing afterwards, fine.

 

Personally, I have no issue with a pro-life ideology that also considers the challenges women face with pregnancy, motherhood and financial/economic independence. And pointing out to you that anti-abortion groups actively work to ensure that women don't have access to services that either prevent unwanted pregnancies or make life easier after giving birth, is somehow "lazy".

 

Oh well. Happy to be lazy I suppose.

[mcsluggo]

are you trolling me now?   

 

 

because, if so... you got me!

 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Ok dude whatever. Apparently to you, calling for state sponsored murder of women who exercise a constitutional right is apparently well within reasonable discourse.

I missed where he said this.

[Zguy28]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

It's a generalization for sure. But it very clearly reflects in the priorities and agendas of anti-abortion groups and advocates. There is an active hostility towards the needs of working women, and anti-abortion activism is very closely tied towards pushing junk like abstinence only education, and ensuring that women do not have access to contraception or basic healthcare services. 

 

Anyone follow the backlash Kevin Williamson received lately? For those not caught up, Kevin Williamson is one of the most prominent conservative writers in the entire country. In his time at National Review, he argued that women who get abortions should face the death penalty. For some inexplicable reason, he was hired by The Atlantic and then fired two weeks later once they faced backlash.

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/04/23/kevin-williamson-says-he-was-persecuted-abortion-providers-and-patients-face-much-worse/220018

 

And the unanimous conservative response to this was to SIDE with this guy. Because you know, advocating for the death of millions of American women is totally not crazy.

 

But I am the mean spirited one for pointing out what a hellscape the anti-abortion movement is in its view of women and their role in society.

As a church pastor, I have a pretty good bead on the hundreds of pro-life Evangelicals in our congregation, and I can tell you, with a few exceptions, I am way more politically aware than them, and I've never even heard of this Kevin Williamson fellow. Sounds like an idiot.

 

This on the other hand, I can get behind. https://www.russellmoore.com/2016/03/31/does-the-pro-life-movement-want-to-punish-women/

[youngestson]

6 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

Safe to say, legitimate policies that would help working women not consider the abortion route are almost completely absent among groups who consider themselves "pro-life".

 

Contraception access. Nope.

 

Sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nope.

 

Supporting publicly funded (charity or governmental) care options for mothers and newborns. Nope.

 

Pre-K education. Nope.

 

Paid maternity (or even paternity) leave laws. Nope.

 

Nothing that legitimately helps pregnant women is on the agenda. 

 

But plenty of money and resources diverted towards fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers that masquerade as health clinics and give women absolutely horrible advice.

 

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/crisis-pregnancy-centers

 

You don't need me to quote you the views of prominent pro-life organizations and influencers on working, professional women or sexual liberation. 

 

I don't think you're being fair here, and I'm in the cliche group of wanting abortion to be legal, safe, and unnecessary. The people who make up the "pro-life" spectrum are a wildly diverse group ranging all over the spectrum from Alex Jones disciples to people to the left of Sanders. 

[No Excuses]

16 hours ago, youngestson said:

 

I don't think you're being fair here, and I'm in the cliche group of wanting abortion to be legal, safe, and unnecessary. The people who make up the "pro-life" spectrum are a wildly diverse group ranging all over the spectrum from Alex Jones disciples to people to the left of Sanders. 

 

I'm not sure what you guys think the outcome of the following set of policy goals is:

 

1. Ending abortion

 

2. Discouraging contraception use for women

 

3. Instituting regulations that allow employers to not comply with the ACA's contraception coverage requirement

 

4. Shutting down health clinics that provide reproductive care services to women

 

5. Cutting funds for public healthcare support for low-income Americans, of which a substantial chunk are women

 

6. Fighting paid parental leave legislation

 

What do you think happens in a scenario where all these goals are achieved? 

 

The overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement actively works to accomplish these goals, and they have succeeded in many states with horrific results.

Edited April 25, 2018 by No Excuses

[Zguy28]

RE: Parental leave. I will admit, I thought this was law. It isn't in the US, which is the only major nation to not have it. Heck Japan offers 52 weeks for the father. What are the implications of this economically in the US? I am for 12 weeks at least paid for mothers. There are obviously lots of complexities to this as well.

[LD0506]

39 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I'm not sure what you guys think the outcome of the following set of policy goals is:

 

1. Ending abortion

 

2. Discouraging contraception use for women

 

3. Instituting regulations that allow employers to not comply with the ACA's contraception coverage requirement

 

4. Shutting down health clinics that provide reproductive care services to women

 

5. Cutting funds for public healthcare support for low-income Americans, of which a substantial chunk are women

 

6. Fighting paid parental leave legislation

 

What do you think happens in a scenario where all these goals are achieved? 

 

The overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement actively works to accomplish these goals, and they have succeeded in many states with horrific results.

 

Isn't it obvious? One helluva lot of people don't see this as a cautionary tale

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

What better way to subjugate an entire population than to insure that they get pregnant early (lack of sex ed and availability of contraceptives) and to keep them forever on the cycle of poverty (forced births) and no means to care for those children (low wages) so the parents are forced to work for peanuts (removal of minimum wage) and as such can’t over come the struggle of early parenthood in a society where one’s training in academy or skill isn’t complete until they are in their early to mid 20’s.

 

When the rich have their children get pregnant rhey can afford the best medical care to take care of it, and if they choose to keep it then they have the funds to allow the mother to continue with her training. The poor don’t. The mothers could give them up for adoption, and I’m sure the stima attached to a mother abandoning her child into foster care will rub off in time, not by the time the damage has been done, but like 10-20 years.

 

But the Pro-Life side will also forget to inform that the Protestant church was once pro-choice until the exteemists pushed the idea that multiple cells were a distinct life that must be forced to maturity otherwise it was murder. Sort of like forcing someone to live with a tumor. 

 

I’m always shocked (moreso than the people who just read that I compared a fetus to a tumor) that there aren’t literally lines of church goers outside of hospitals begging to adopt the unwanted babies. For all of their handwringing I’ve ever heard in church about the condemnation of abortion I have NEVER in 20 years of church ministry heard of any sustained effort to care for the children that are forced into this world. 

In fact, it’s just the opposite. A near total disregard for families in need, pitied looks and lectures on responsibility with a paper sack of ramen noodles and peanut butter.

 

You want to show me that Evangelicals are TRULY Pro-Life, then screaming at mothers and calling them murderers directly or in veiled tones isn’t the way to do it. I know I sound bitter, and I am. It is because by in large Christians in America are perpetuating a myth, not a myth about divinity, but the myth that they love their neighbors, that they care about the unborn and the born, that they do anything more than continue to prop up a religious based system of their own legistic creeds.

[Fresh8686]

19 hours ago, youngestson said:

 

I don't think you're being fair here, and I'm in the cliche group of wanting abortion to be legal, safe, and unnecessary. The people who make up the "pro-life" spectrum are a wildly diverse group ranging all over the spectrum from Alex Jones disciples to people to the left of Sanders. 

You and other posters on here are correct that the pro-life group is not a monolith, however the other posters on here are basically saying, you may not be a monolith, but the legislative agenda and actions taken so far from the pro-life crowd are so prevalently sourced from the more extreme voices of the group, that "y'all" may as well be monolithic... so monolithic in practice if not identification, is still for all intents and purposes monolithic in wholesale.

Does that make sense?

However, I'd be open to information showing evidence of action from the pro-life crowd that runs counter to it's more extreme iterations. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, so there may be holes in my game.

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

RE: Parental leave. I will admit, I thought this was law. It isn't in the US, which is the only major nation to not have it. Heck Japan offers 52 weeks for the father. What are the implications of this economically in the US? I am for 12 weeks at least paid for mothers. There are obviously lots of complexities to this as well.

 

2 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

However, I'd be open to information showing evidence of action from the pro-life crowd that runs counter to it's more extreme iterations. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, so there may be holes in my game.

 

For what it's worth, some pro-life advocates have recently come out in favor of paid parental leave for instance. At least on the conservative side, some are open to paid maternity leave.

 

It's a small, not very vocal minority, but it's there. However, congressional Republicans and most major advocacy organizations are either completely hostile towards it or dead silent.

 

Financial issues are usually the most common reason women give for getting an abortion according to data. Along with better access to contraception and good sex ed, paid parental leave and strong labor protections that don't penalize women for pregnancy and being mothers would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Edited April 25, 2018 by No Excuses

[Fresh8686]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

For what it's worth, some pro-life advocates have recently come out in favor of paid parental leave for instance. At least on the conservative side, some are open to paid maternity leave.

 

It's a small, not very vocal minority, but it's there. However, congressional Republicans and most major advocacy organizations are either completely hostile towards it or dead silent.

Right, thanks for that. So where does that leave us? Appreciating that minority in theory, but in practice focusing on the larger or more vocal/active and extreme majority?

How much credence do we give to that minority in discussion, so those who belong to it feel seen, while still emphasizing the reality that pro-life in practice does not jive with their professed parameters? 



 

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Right, thanks for that. So where does that leave us? Appreciating that minority in theory, but in practice focusing on the larger or more vocal/active and extreme majority?

How much credence do we give to that minority in discussion, so those who belong to it feel seen, while still emphasizing the reality that pro-life in practice does not jive with their professed parameters? 

 

One way forward is that this small minority on the conservative side that supports paid parental leave may be key in getting legislation passed in the future. As of now, both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have openly dismissed the idea of legislating anything having to do with paid parental leave. 

 

But you can imagine a scenario in the future where a Democrat controlled congress is able to bring this issue to the floor for debate and votes, and some Senate Republicans are able to vote in favor of it to push it pass the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

 

The downside? The most vocal supporter for paid maternity leave on the Republican side is Marco Rubio, and it's highly likely that he sheds his spine the moment a conservative PAC starts hammering him for it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

http://time.com/money/4629700/child-raising-cost-department-of-agriculture-report/

 

Minimum wage at $7.25 an hour is $15,000 per year. Lets just for fun have a parent get paid $11.05 an hour for $23,000 per year. To raise ONE child that parent would have to work full time for 10 years just to break even and that’s BEFORE taxes and don’t even think of spending a dime on anything other than raising that child.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Then I would suggest that person not have a child.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Then I would suggest that person not have a child.

If only there was a way to keep that from happening.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I would suggest they start with these.

 

 

*I also think condoms and birth control pills should be free.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would suggest they start with these.

 

 

*I also think condoms and birth control pills should be free.  

You do know how ineffective those are, right?

Or are you one of the poor saps who suffered through sn abstinence only program?