Trump's Male Room

[2dimes]

Yup, I'm aware. You sound like you either are not aware or in denial that babies are still getting binned.

Back on track now. Maybe we should make a clinic rating site tsore. Needs a catchy name that pretends abortion is cool.

http://www.choosychoice.com
http://www.tisueremovaladvisor.com

Might be both a great service and a money maker. I am somewhat against messing with this as it's like helmet and seatbelt laws, all parts of natural selection.

[riskllama]

why no "prom night dumpster baby" yet?

[riskllama]

*inb4 prom night dumpster baby*

[2dimes]

Wat...

[warmonger1981]

Tzor aren't you a KoC? How does your organization feel about it?

[2dimes]

They sponsor safe baby drop boxes. Not every woman's choice for tissue disposal.

[thegreekdog]

So Trump has signed an executive order to reinstate the global gag rule- a rule that prohibits federal money going towards organisations that provide advice on family planning and women's health if they include abortions.

Seems like a bad idea, but it's tough to argue with anti-abortion people. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out- this will not do anything to reduce rates of abortions- it will possibly even increase it, and certainly make it more dangerous.

But then, as the President's spokesperson has said- "We can disagree with the facts".

I wonder how much money the US government will save.

[Symmetry]

So Trump has signed an executive order to reinstate the global gag rule- a rule that prohibits federal money going towards organisations that provide advice on family planning and women's health if they include abortions.

Seems like a bad idea, but it's tough to argue with anti-abortion people. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out- this will not do anything to reduce rates of abortions- it will possibly even increase it, and certainly make it more dangerous.

But then, as the President's spokesperson has said- "We can disagree with the facts".

I wonder how much money the US government will save.

Welcome back TGD. I doubt that there will be any savings though. As far as I know the "grab em by the pussy" executive order was ideologically based. Funding will simply go to other organisations. Likely the kind that provide inaccurate or false information to pregnant women. I don't think the order concerned the overall budget anyway.

[thegreekdog]

Ah, I see.

I'm indifferent as to whether women get information from the government as to how babies are made. I'm certainly against spending tax dollars on it. But that seems to be the way of the world now. A few million people got together and protested... something...

(1) Less than a majority of voters elected a misogynist for president. Seems like some of these protestors voted for Bill Clinton who I'm pretty sure if he's not a misogynist has at least used his power and influence to have sex with women. But otherwise seems like a valid reason to protest.

(2) The Affordable Care Act will be repealed and replaced (what, you didn't know it was going to be replaced?) by a law that does not require the government to pay for contraceptives. Apart from the old libertarian addage of not having the government pay for stuff, seems like the protestors can probably go down to the local supermarket and purchase some contraceptives. Or, you know, get health insurance that covers that sort of thing.

(3) Donald Trump hates gays. As far as I can tell, he is the first president to enter office being supportive of gay marriage. If I recall correctly, President Obama, President Bush, and President Clinton were not supporters of gay marriage when they were elected. Presumably President Bush is still not in favor of gay marriage. Presumably President Clinton is, albeit after he was president. President Obama became a supporter of gay marriage at some point in his administration, likely because it was politically expedient to do so.

So I guess they were protesting (1) - having a misogynist president. Perhaps they should have done that prior to his election. Because now we have to deal with this weird administration of alternative facts, media intimidation (maybe that's not the right word), not adhering to any one political philosophy (more taxes! no, less taxes!).

[DoomYoshi]

Indeed, I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning abortion somehow stops women from having abortions. You'd think that Trump could at least have had a woman in the room for the photo-op, but it really does come across as being about men controlling women's bodies.

It's not about men controlling women's bodies, you silly lad, and that's not the mindset. That's just a straw man, as you're so fond of saying, trotted out by the opposition. It's disingenuous. If it were true, there wouldn't be any pro-life women out there, and there are plenty. It's about criminalizing abortion (what the lifers see as murder), and later leading to the capabilities to punish those who receive or provide abortions. Everyone knows abortions will always happen, just like any other crime will always happen until the end of time.

Saying the goal of anti-abortion measures is simply for some crusty old men who have control fantasies is akin to saying the same thing for anti-murder or anti-theft measures. It's no different from the so-called drug war from Reagan's fallout. Drugs will always be a problem, and now they have the justification for imprisonment (and profit!).

Mis-characterizing the pro-lifers like that won't stop them. The only way to ensure that abortion stays legal is to address the heart of the issue, that is, when life begins. It would be much more effective for education to address this issue, displacing religious artifacts about the idea, and emphasizing medical science regarding gestation, embryology, and such.

-TG

"When life begins" - Zygotes have life. Abortion robs them of life. End of story.

What the real question is - "When personhood begins". Unfortunately, we are stuck in an era when narcissism is extreme. People define the person and the self based on "I think, therefore I am". The intellectual pershonhood is based around the concept of the mind, and more specifically the self. It's pretty ingrained so I imagine that most people don't even know what I am talking about it since they can't think outside that box. Unfortunately, that definition doesn't jive with reality.

The real definition of a person is in community. If you asked somebody who they are, the definitions of nationality, denomination, race, income class, occupation etc. are the only real answers you can get. Even if you consider the non-superficial categories and break down all people into a list of doctrines that they hold, you can categorize people based on the doctrine they hold and the intersections of these doctrines. Incidentally, any comparisons done of doctrines (based on admittedly dubious questionnaire results [I only say this because I don't trust questionnaires {I don't trust questionnaires because I always lie on them, so I assume everyone else does as well}]) compared to the superficial categories proves that the superficial categories of defining self (or other or person) correlate and even predict doctrine.

Abortion is an amazing example. Opinions on abortion correlate with social group, not on education levels or religion as you may suspect. Since religion and education level also somewhat depend on social group, it could be a great mystery. My point is that personhood isn't an innate thing. It is entirely defined in a community sense. In other words, whether or not you self-identify as a person doesn't matter. Whether you put black or white on your census doesn't matter - what defines the person is whether or not there are groups called black or white that you can identify with. If a group is willing to accept zygotes as people, who are you to say otherwise?

Interestingly enough, Spiked is doing a series on selfhood. I haven't had a chance to read it all, but I love this quote:

Basically, narcissism is the new herpes. It’s not like you got it on purpose, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and now everyone’s pointing fingers and trying to pretend they don’t have it, too. Hence the blame game. You’re so self-involved. Can you think of anything but your self? What’s that horrible smell? It’s you.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/narcissism-a-reflection/19371#.WIv1IhkrI2w

[thegreekdog]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

Separately:

If this election has taught me anything, it's taught me that Team Blue and Team Red have no concept of how to have a constructive (or even not constructive) argument based on available information. Instead it's "you're racist" and "you're stupid and uneducated. vs. "you live in a bubble" and "you're spoiled." That seems to be the extent of political discourse in this country. One of my good friends typed out a whole diatribe about the people at the March for Life yesterday saying they were hypocritical because they wouldn't want to pay to take care of those babies and mothers post-birth. Despite that this is a strawman and also in most cases untrue, it's also largely hypocritical itself. I responded "If a pro-lifer said that he or she would agree to pay to take care of the babies and mothers post-birth would you support their point of view." She has not responded because while she will use a line of argument to denigrate one side she will not acknowledge her own hypocrisy. If conservatives guaranteed adoption or child care in every case, my friend would still be pro-choice. Why? I have no idea.

Also separately:

Given that the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus was not a person and therefore was not protected and that this determination is not in line with any sort of science, I find it fascinating that Team Blue (allegedly more scientifically enlightened) completely ignores this. In circumstances where science supports Team Blue's point of view, they are perfectly willing to pound the table with the mounds of data; but where science says "yeah, actually, this is not a collection of cells at X months, it's a person that can live outside the womb" the response is "THOSE FASCISTS WANT TO RULE OUR BODIES BY MAKING US NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ABORTIONS AFTER X MONTHS!" and then they put on their vagina-shaped hat and walk away.

[Symmetry]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

What if, in the weird parallels you use, such a ban actually led to an increase in murder and theft?

Would you find the idea of punishing murderers so appealing that you would accept an increase in murders as a trade?

[thegreekdog]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

What if, in the weird parallels you use, such a ban actually led to an increase in murder and theft?

Would you find the idea of punishing murderers so appealing that you would accept an increase in murders as a trade?

Of course not. I suppose you will now provide some evidence that banning abortion results in more abortions.

[mrswdk]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

I assume this is a sarcastic response to something Symmetry has said earlier in this thread but this thread is way too tl;dr for me to check.

But in any case, the opposite is obviously true: banning something causes it to happen at a far greater rate than before. Before marital rape was made illegal in the US, there were 0 reported cases of marital rape happening in the US. Since it became illegal, the number of cases has shot up. It's official - laws create crime!

[thegreekdog]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

I assume this is a sarcastic response to something Symmetry has said earlier in this thread but this thread is way too tl;dr for me to check.

But in any case, the opposite is obviously true: banning something causes it to happen at a far greater rate than before. Before marital rape was made illegal in the US, there were 0 reported cases of marital rape happening in the US. Since it became illegal, the number of cases has shot up. It's official - laws create crime!

Hmm... that is fairly concerning. Perhaps instead of Trump sending in the national guard, Chicago can reduce its murder rates by repealing that ordinance.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Let me put it another way:

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning murder somehow stops people from murdering.

or if you "murder" makes you uncomfortable

I've never really understood the fundamentalist mindset that somehow thinks that banning theft somehow stops people from thieving.

Would the term "illegal" help you identify it better? Pretty much the same thing. It gives people a clear notion that they'll be severely punished for it.

If this election has taught me anything, it's taught me that Team Blue and Team Red have no concept of how to have a constructive (or even not constructive) argument based on available information. Instead it's "you're racist" and "you're stupid and uneducated. vs. "you live in a bubble" and "you're spoiled." That seems to be the extent of political discourse in this country. One of my good friends typed out a whole diatribe about the people at the March for Life yesterday saying they were hypocritical because they wouldn't want to pay to take care of those babies and mothers post-birth. Despite that this is a strawman and also in most cases untrue, it's also largely hypocritical itself. I responded "If a pro-lifer said that he or she would agree to pay to take care of the babies and mothers post-birth would you support their point of view." She has not responded because while she will use a line of argument to denigrate one side she will not acknowledge her own hypocrisy. If conservatives guaranteed adoption or child care in every case, my friend would still be pro-choice. Why? I have no idea.

It also taught a large majority of people world wide just how ass backwards we run things. This whole election was fought with stupid facebook memes, false facts about both parties, and outright stupidity.
Abortion is on my lowest priority of things that need to be resolved. Reasons being is that no one can come to an agreement on it. It's split down the middle, no matter the stance, you're going to offend a significant amount of people. I'd rather sit back and watch people debate until everyone can come to some sort of agreement, at least that would have been my stance on it if I was running for president. Wouldn't touch that subject with a 10ft pole, despite my views.

Given that the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus was not a person and therefore was not protected and that this determination is not in line with any sort of science, I find it fascinating that Team Blue (allegedly more scientifically enlightened) completely ignores this. In circumstances where science supports Team Blue's point of view, they are perfectly willing to pound the table with the mounds of data; but where science says "yeah, actually, this is not a collection of cells at X months, it's a person that can live outside the womb" the response is "THOSE FASCISTS WANT TO RULE OUR BODIES BY MAKING US NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ABORTIONS AFTER X MONTHS!" and then they put on their vagina-shaped hat and walk away.

"Womens rights."

I work with a goofball women's activist. The question posed to me at work went something along of "If you were a bartender and a pregenant women came up to you asking for a drink, would you serve her?" "Of course not." "DOH! YOU'RE WRONG, MEH!"
Nevermind the fact that it's morally wrong, her rights matter.

What I'm trying to hammer home is, these people don't care about the fact that they have a living human in them, their rights trumps over that fact because it's their body and their choice to kill/damage whatever until they exit. Some real shitty logic with no real merit IE lack of responsibility, but whatever. It's their right.

[thegreekdog]

I don't know any women that have had an abortion personally (or at least if one of my female friends did have an abortion, she didn't say). Nearly all of my female friends that protested last weekend have children. So when you say "their rights trumps over that fact because it's their body and their choice to kill/damage whatever until they exit" I suspect that many of the women protesting haven't actually had and will not actually have an abortion. Which, again, makes me a bit confused - these women aren't protesting their right to have an abortion, but allegedly protesting someone else's right to have one. I personally think the only reason they were protesting is because the president is a mysogynist (given that if Kasich or Bush or Cruz or any other Republican would have won the presidency, they probably would have repealed and replaced the ACA and no one would have protested... or at least not as many people). My opinion is also based on the sound bites I heard from some of our most respected actresses which had more to do with Trump's comments about women than they did about reproductive rights.

[Symmetry]

I don't know any women that have had an abortion personally (or at least if one of my female friends did have an abortion, she didn't say). Nearly all of my female friends that protested last weekend have children. So when you say "their rights trumps over that fact because it's their body and their choice to kill/damage whatever until they exit" I suspect that many of the women protesting haven't actually had and will not actually have an abortion. Which, again, makes me a bit confused - these women aren't protesting their right to have an abortion, but allegedly protesting someone else's right to have one. I personally think the only reason they were protesting is because the president is a mysogynist (given that if Kasich or Bush or Cruz or any other Republican would have won the presidency, they probably would have repealed and replaced the ACA and no one would have protested... or at least not as many people). My opinion is also based on the sound bites I heard from some of our most respected actresses which had more to do with Trump's comments about women than they did about reproductive rights.

I don't see the contradiction- surely people can argue their rights to have an abortion even if they haven't exercised it. Would you argue that only people who have experienced torture should protest "enhanced interrogation"?

I genuinely don't understand your logic on this TGD.

[thegreekdog]

I don't know any women that have had an abortion personally (or at least if one of my female friends did have an abortion, she didn't say). Nearly all of my female friends that protested last weekend have children. So when you say "their rights trumps over that fact because it's their body and their choice to kill/damage whatever until they exit" I suspect that many of the women protesting haven't actually had and will not actually have an abortion. Which, again, makes me a bit confused - these women aren't protesting their right to have an abortion, but allegedly protesting someone else's right to have one. I personally think the only reason they were protesting is because the president is a mysogynist (given that if Kasich or Bush or Cruz or any other Republican would have won the presidency, they probably would have repealed and replaced the ACA and no one would have protested... or at least not as many people). My opinion is also based on the sound bites I heard from some of our most respected actresses which had more to do with Trump's comments about women than they did about reproductive rights.

I don't see the contradiction- surely people can argue their rights to have an abortion even if they haven't exercised it. Would you argue that only people who have experienced torture should protest "enhanced interrogation"?

I genuinely don't understand your logic on this TGD.

I would argue that people who protest torture don't want to be tortured.

Suffice it to say, there is no current law, executive order, or other proposal banning abortion proposed by the Trump administration. As far as I can tell, the only threat to a woman's rights to an abortion is the right to have it paid for by the US government. And that doesn't seem much like a right. I have the right to free speech but it doesn't require the US government to pay for my full-length novel.

Thus, I remain confused. Unless of course the purpose of the march was to protest Trump the pussy-grabber (which seems to coincide with the various speeches) and thus, I'm less confused (although not entirely free from confusion given, well, Bill Clinton).

[mrswdk]

Rather than banning abortions, I think they should ban people having too many kids.

Source: Freakanomics, China's booming economy, LOGIC.

[saxitoxin]

Rather than banning abortions, I think they should ban people having too many kids.

they should ban you from having any kids

[thegreekdog]

Abortion is on my lowest priority of things that need to be resolved. Reasons being is that no one can come to an agreement on it. It's split down the middle, no matter the stance, you're going to offend a significant amount of people

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

So in 1975, 75% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).
In 2016, 79% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).

So not sure it's split down the middle.

[patches70]

So Trump has signed an executive order to reinstate the global gag rule- a rule that prohibits federal money going towards organisations that provide advice on family planning and women's health if they include abortions.

Seems like a bad idea, but it's tough to argue with anti-abortion people. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out- this will not do anything to reduce rates of abortions- it will possibly even increase it, and certainly make it more dangerous.

But then, as the President's spokesperson has said- "We can disagree with the facts".

Ahh what sym fails to note here, either through ignorance or deliberate omission, is that this order has zero bearing inside the US.
Also, this particular thing is always banned under Republican administrations and then reinstated under democrat administrations. This has been going on since at least Reagan, this little dance.

What the order does is withhold funding in foreign countries for foreign organizations that provide abortions. Now, what pro choicer thinks it's the United States responsibility to pay for the abortions for Mexican citizens in Mexico? Or any other country for that matter.

It does not ban abortions, it doesn't try to say to other countries that they have to ban abortions, just that the US isn't going to provide money for them for such purposes. It's a reasonable point, as is the alternative, to pay for the abortions of citizens in other countries, I guess in a way. One would argue it goes to stabilizing said country through population control via abortions. Besides, the countries can always divert other US aid funds to abort their citizens babies if that's what they want to do. It's not like the US is really all that good at accounting for foreign aid.

But this order always plays out the same way, Bush jr did the exact same thing when he first got into office. Don't you all remember? People were out on the streets protesting the hell out of him for it. Oh, wait, no they weren't.
Obama then reinstated in his first week in office, to much fanfare and flag waving, don't you all remember? Oh, wait, it wasn't a big deal. And it still isn't a big deal. <yawn>

[Symmetry]

That is also incorrect- American organisations that provide aid in foreign countries are also targeted. Read the thread next time, Patches.

[patches70]

That is also incorrect- American organisations that provide aid in foreign countries are also targeted. Read the thread next time, Patches.

Why should American organizations performing abortions in foreign countries be entitled to taxpayer money to perform those abortions?

The argument can go either way, for or against, and both are valid. It's a valid argument that the US shouldn't be paying for abortions in foreign countries.
It's also a valid argument that the US should help other countries in medicine. There is no right or wrong answer here. It all comes down to personal belief.
The Republicans generally go for the former, the Democrats generally go for the latter.

You fail to see that this withholding of funding happens every single time administrations change in the US.

Again, <yawn>, you are trying to make an issue out of a non issue. Bush jr did the same thing. Obama undid it. Bush sr did the same thing, William "cigar" Clinton undid it. Reagan did the same thing. That's about as far back as I'm sure of, but that pretty much sets the stage, doesn't it?
The point is, which you fail to see, is that this is routine for the past 40 years you twit, but I guarantee you didn't know that because your knowledge of US politics is severely lacking.