Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

I disagree on some of the above. In terms of viability, yes, it's a moving target, but the target is moving "earlier", and will continue moving toward earlier as science improves. It's a scientific argument, not a morale or religious one (on the surface).

It's a red herring, though. Your worth is tied to your humanity, not your ability to support yourself independently of others. If you become incapacitated via dementia 20 years from now, it would monstrous for your wife and kids to smother you with a pillow because your continued existence is now inconvenient. But that's the logic whereby we've authorized the killing of ~60 million American babies over the last 50 years.

On the Overton Window analogy, yes I agree that we attempt at finding compromise, however current dems are way outside the window in many areas of their platform. IIRC the terms would be "radical", bordering on "unthinkable". In other words, from a mainstream perspective, the dems are attempting to enlarge the window or drag it to what is characterized as extreme by mainstream. I'd say that is more of a case of their attempts to use "creeping normality".

That wasn't really my point. Our Overton Window on abortion hovers around "Full go pre-viability, but subject to restriction post-viability" only because the poles of respectable opinion are perceived to be "complete prohibition" on the right and "active encouragement" on the left. But since one of those poles is outrageously evil, the Overton Window doesn't land on a sensible compromise, but an incoherent policy that still results in a million dead American babies each year. Like the Louis CK bit goes, an abortion either has the moral import of a bowel movement, or it's an act of monstrous cruelty. There's no middle ground.

In terms of the 3/5s compromise, I don't see a great connection. It was more a topic of taxation and representation, than morality or any other subject. The South was actually against it at first. It both helped (increased power and representation), but also hurt (taxation).

My point was this: one side largely believed that Africans are human and should not be subjected to slavery; the other side believed they were subhuman, and could thus be treated like chattel. Those were the two poles of American political opinion at the time, and that resulted in a bunch of "centrist" compromises that provided cover for indefensible policies. That's what happens when you try to do liberal politics without guardrails against intrinsic evil, and we're seeing the same dynamic playing out now with abortion.

Back to our willingness to accept centrist compromises and Overton theory.... I can compartmentalize my religious beliefs on the topic. IMO, science is the only way to gain any ground in the area. I'm not afraid to say that Bible quoting and shaming only emboldens the Pro Choice side and helps them rally supporters to their side.

Who suggested bible quoting and shaming? The best way to dissuade a woman from aborting her child is to give her an ultrasound, because it makes the baby's humanity apparent. And science absolutely supports the pro-life position that human life begins at conception. What it doesn't do is justify killing a baby at 20 weeks old but not a week later, when the baby might be able to survive out of the womb.

Science however is a tool that libs have used over and over to push the Overton window where they want. It's time the PLers use it to their advantage, even if it doesn't get them exactly what they want. The staunch PLers will continue to fail so long as they lead with the Bible and demand total victory. I'd rather save what I can and then continue to lose them all.

American Leftists rarely invoke science in defense of abortion (because it undermines their goals). They idolize personal autonomy, and abortion is crucial to securing that.

If I can't f*ck another consenting adult any time I want without consequence, then I'm not free. But contraception isn't 100% effective, and the conception of a child is a major life-altering consequence. Thus, abortion is required for sexual freedom.

More importantly, economic equality requires that women be able to compete in the labor market on the same terms as men. Pregnancy, birth and parenthood are not conducive to being a productive wage slave, so abortion is also required for economic freedom.

Those are the grounds on which the left fights for abortion, and they don't have room for the inherent dignity of human life, let alone the dignity of a mother who opts to invest in her children rather than an employer. "Science" has nothing to do with it.

Bonus.... the Church's views on birth control is also a hindrance to the fight. It's a silly hill to die on. Not only does it give Planned Parenthood another means of rallying support, it also helps creates the condition and outcome (abortion) that we are all trying to avoid. That's on top of being a hindrance to fighting the spread of disease and poverty.

Any society that tolerates contraception must also tolerate abortion as a backstop for when contraception fails. You can't have one without the other. Allowing the pill says that children are a choice, not a gift. And we don't like forcing such choices on people, what with our personal autonomy fetish and all. So we have to give people an out for when they conceive "accidentally".

Never mind that all of this--encouraging our citizenry to thoughtlessly indulge its basest inclinations as often as possible, and our women to murder their own children--all directly profits the capitalist class that owns our politicians and our entertainment industry. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To the bolded, I agree that the Pro Lifers need a better "marketing strategy." The left has successfully lumped women's healthcare, birth control, etc, AND abortion into the same category. I'd prefer women's healthcare be covered under some version of Med for All. Also agree with your point on birth control. Leaving abortion in its own category and making it a human rights issue makes it a whole lot harder to defend.

Regardless of one's marketing strategy, you're going to have an uphill battle fighting the interests of the 1%.

To add, I'd love for the right to adopt a stronger position on postpartum support. Making adoption easier and more affordable, Universal healthcare, greater tax incentives for families, paid maternity/paternity leave incentives for companies, etc.

See above. These programs aren't good for the bottom line of the people who rule us, so they never go anywhere. Policies that actually encourage stable family formation and support the weakest of us (babies in utero, children, the elderly, the disabled, etc.) would require a government with the power to properly subjugate the economy to higher goods. We don't have one of those.

Back to birth control, God never explicitly addressed it. The Church want's to make the huge leap from "be fruitful and multiply" to thou shall not wear a condom. It's just nonsense to me. The folks that bring up Onan have even less of a case. The mental gymnastics around most of it is one of the areas where the Church fails to see the forest for the trees. Stick strongly to the direct basics and less on all the "interpretation" of indirect leaps.

Tolle lege.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's a red herring, though. Your worth is tied to your humanity, not your ability to support yourself independently of others. If you become incapacitated via dementia 20 years from now, it would monstrous for your wife and kids to smother you with a pillow because you're continued existence is now inconvenient. But that's the logic whereby we've authorized the killing of ~60 million American babies over the last 50 years.

It may be a red herring to you from a philosophical and religious perspective, but not to others. Regardless of how much you or I would like others to embrace a "belief", the strategy fails, and many more millions will be killed. What can happen is that non-believers who shirk religion and responsibility, are open to science and are very much turned off by the thought of a fetus "at a certain stage" being aborted. That stage is certainly a moving target, but it is something that is real to some, while religion never will be. Souls can not be proven or disproved, but viability, nervous system (ability to feel pain), brain function (conscientiousness) can be.

That wasn't really my point. Our Overton Window on abortion hovers around "Full go pre-viability, but subject to restriction post-viability" only because the poles of respectable opinion are perceived to be "complete prohibition" on the right and "active encouragement" on the left. But since one of those poles is outrageously evil, the Overton Window doesn't land on a sensible compromise, but an incoherent policy that still results in a million dead American babies each year. Like the Louis CK bit goes, an abortion either has the moral import of a bowel movement, or it's an act of monstrous cruelty. There's no middle ground.

To my point of above, your application of religion is intrinsically limiting. You state the outrageously evil prohibits a sensible compromise, but also admit that complete prohibition is the other pole. The current window isn't changing until one side modifies or changes it's stance or strategy. Decoupling the birth control fight would shift the window some on it's own. The injection of science over religion shifts the window. And both of those shifts will save lives.

My point was this: one side largely believed that Africans are human and should not be subjected to slavery; the other side believed they were subhuman, and could thus be treated like chattel. Those were the two poles of American political opinion at the time, and that resulted in a bunch of "centrist" compromises that provided cover for indefensible policies. That's what happens when you try to do liberal politics without guardrails against intrinsic evil, and we're seeing the same dynamic playing out now with abortion.

In that climate, I do not see the pro-slave elements to be liberal, so I don't see it as a great analogy for the topic. The centrist compromise is relevant to an extent, but there is much more context to situation. One could argue it was as much or more about power and greed, than simply the morality of slavery. While slavery is and was always obviously immoral, there were other driving factors at play. History has become overly singular when looking at many historical events.

Who suggested bible quoting and shaming? The best way to dissuade a woman from aborting her child is to give her an ultrasound, because it makes the baby's humanity apparent. And science absolutely supports the pro-life position that human life begins at conception. What it doesn't do is justify killing a baby at 20 weeks old but not a week later, when the baby might be able to survive out of the womb.

You did not suggest Bible quoting or shaming, but if you've ever seen pro-lifers outside of an abortion clinic, there's plenty of that going on. And like it or not, that's the face that many attribute to the movement. Again, goes back to bad marketing. FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree on the ultrasound.

In terms though of the beginning of "life", the definition itself is ripe with debate and subjective to many. I hold the same beliefs as you, however to many it's not that simple. Both spermatozoon and eggs could be considered life or living. A fertilized egg is living. From a cell perspective, all are most certainly alive. The question of "humanity" is subjective however. Conscientiousness is where many put a stake in the ground.

American Leftists rarely invoke science in defense of abortion (because it undermines their goals). They idolize personal autonomy, and abortion is crucial to securing that.

That's my point. But they do invoke in other areas where it suits them. It's time PLers use it to their advantage.

If I can't f*ck another consenting adult any time I want without consequence, then I'm not free. But contraception isn't 100% effective, and the conception of a child is a major life-altering consequence. Thus, abortion is required for sexual freedom.

This argument does nothing but give PCs another area to exploit and gain support. It's a loser argument for all non-Christians, and a loser argument for a growing amount of Christians. This does absolutely nothing to help us save aborted lives.

More importantly, economic equality requires that women be able to compete in the labor market on the same terms as men. Pregnancy, birth and parenthood are not conducive to being a productive wage slave, so abortion is also required for economic freedom.

Same as above (argument wise)

Those are the grounds on which the left fights for abortion, and they don't have room for the inherent dignity of human life, let alone the dignity of a mother who opts to invest in her children rather than an employer. "Science" has nothing to do with it.

Remove these arguments and you deflate a lot of the PCs strength. Focus on the science, and the window moves right.

Any society that tolerates contraception must also tolerate abortion as a backstop for when contraception fails. You can't have one without the other. Allowing the pill says that children are a choice, not a gift. And we don't like forcing such choices on people, what with our personal autonomy fetish and all. So we have to give people an out for when they conceive "accidentally".

Choice vs gift, is a religious argument. Same point here. I agree religiously, but it adds strength to the PCs.

And I disagree on contraception. It's the biggest hindrance to the fight. The Church's view on it creates exactly what it is trying to prevent (abortion). It also can prevent the spread of disease and poverty. To think non-Christians or non-Catholics will ever embrace this stance is foolish, and many of those same people only embrace the PC side because of the PL stance on contraception in the first place.

Never mind that all of this--encouraging our citizenry to thoughtlessly indulge its basest inclinations as often as possible, and our women to murder their own children--all directly profits the capitalist class that owns our politicians and our entertainment industry. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart...

Can't put it all on the capitalist class. The socialist and communist classes are as strong or stronger on the topic.

Not trying to be difficult. I'd much prefer a different world. We'd be a much better people if we had more Whiskeyjacks. That said, we are where we are. The window is sliding further, and will continue if we don't change our strategy. Unless you're willing to watch it slide till the 2nd coming, something needs to give to save what lives can be saved.

 

[Irish YJ]

Tolle lege.

I'm well schooled on the Church's position. I think it's one of many topics where "man" fills in the blanks not explicitly addressed in the Bible. While I understand most of the "concepts" and desires of the Church in this area, it's a large leap from what we actually see in the Bible, stresses Catholic population growth, and ignores all other factors.

Is God really against families planning the timing, and simply expect them not to have sex until them. Does God really expect non-Christians in AIDS riddled areas to simply abstain all together or deserve death if they don't. In over populated areas, people should continue to populate regardless of the detriment it creates. Should we expect families in extreme poverty to not have sex or continue to increase the poverty condition they are already under.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It may be a red herring to you from a philosophical and religious perspective, but not to others. Regardless of how much you or I would like others to embrace a "belief", the strategy fails, and many more millions will be killed. What can happen is that non-believers who shirk religion and responsibility, are open to science and are very much turned off by the thought of a fetus "at a certain stage" being aborted. That stage is certainly a moving target, but it is something that is real to some, while religion never will be. Souls can not be proven or disproved, but viability, nervous system (ability to feel pain), brain function (conscientiousness) can be.

I made no reference to souls, pain sensitivity, or brain function. The latter two are things Progressives try to use to justify first-term abortions. But there's no way to argue to use those arguments that doesn't open the door to euthanizing the mentally-handicapped and other vulnerable classes of people. It's already happening in Europe. Either your value inheres in your humanity and every person is entitled to legal protection (from conception to natural death) on that basis, or you're only valuable if you check certain arbitrary boxes, and those with more power than you can legally liquidate you if they find it convenient.

To my point of above, your application of religion is intrinsically limiting. You state the outrageously evil prohibits a sensible compromise, but also admit that complete prohibition is the other pole. The current window isn't changing until one side modifies or changes it's stance or strategy. Decoupling the birth control fight would shift the window some on it's own. The injection of science over religion shifts the window. And both of those shifts will save lives.

I haven't cited the Bible, the Catechism or a single encyclical thus far. And I don't have to. That murder is a gross violation of the Natural Law is readily apparent through reason alone, unaided by divine revelation.

The Catholic Church's position on this issue is totally coherent, and could never be used to justify something like chattel slavery or the Holocaust. Which is a lot more than I can say for the Progressive position, or any squishy compromise that treats legal abortion as a reasonable position that ought to be compromised with.

Would you have advised abolitionists in the early 19th century that their insistence on complete prohibition was unreasonable? Lots of Americans made similar arguments, but in hindsight they were clearly wrong. One cannot compromise with an intrinsic evil.

In that climate, I do not see the pro-slave elements to be liberal, so I don't see it as a great analogy for the topic. The centrist compromise is relevant to an extent, but there is much more context to situation. One could argue it was as much or more about power and greed, than simply the morality of slavery. While slavery is and was always obviously immoral, there were other driving factors at play. History has become overly singular when looking at many historical events.

Oof. So you want to wave away the slavery comparison by insisting that "It's complicated?" How about the Holocaust? Every time one group seeks to define a vulnerable minority as something less than fully human, mass murder has been the result. And humans being what they are, power and greed are always important factors. But I don't see how you can say that chattel slavery and the Holocaust were definitely super evil, but ~60 million American babies killed since Roe v. Wade is merely "complicated".

You did not suggest Bible quoting or shaming, but if you've ever seen pro-lifers outside of an abortion clinic, there's plenty of that going on. And like it or not, that's the face that many attribute to the movement. Again, goes back to bad marketing. FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree on the ultrasound.

You may recall that I serve on the board for one of the largest crisis pregnancy centers in Phoenix. I have prayed outside of abortion clinics frequently, and I've never personally seen Bible-quoting or shaming. I know it happens, and it's a shame that some pro-life activists adopt such tactics, but you could have leveled the same charges at the abolitionists. John Brown probably could have been more effective with a bit more restraint, but I'm not inclined to blame those who have to take up arms in the face of such radical evil.

In terms though of the beginning of "life", the definition itself is ripe with debate and subjective to many. I hold the same beliefs as you, however to many it's not that simple. Both spermatozoon and eggs could be considered life or living. A fertilized egg is living. From a cell perspective, all are most certainly alive. The question of "humanity" is subjective however. Conscientiousness is where many put a stake in the ground.

Not true. Every embryology text book taken up by 1st year med students agrees that human life begins at conception, because that's the point at which a new, genetically-unique, individual is created. It is an absolute bright-line definition that has never been in doubt since modern embryology took off a couple hundred years ago. The only reason there's any "debate" over this basic universally accepted medical definition of when human life begins is due to powerful interest groups who want to exclude certain vulnerable minorities from legal protection for political reasons.

This argument does nothing but give PCs another area to exploit and gain support. It's a loser argument for all non-Christians, and a loser argument for a growing amount of Christians. This does absolutely nothing to help us save aborted lives.

It's really not. I've got two non-Christian friends (philosophically they're both basically Stoics) who accept it for various reasons. One believes elites have a moral obligation to reproduce, and the other is convinced that contraceptives are a big reason for plummeting birth rates across the West. No civilization can long survive whose citizens don't take responsibility for themselves and restrain their passions. Birth control undermines both, and is thus the enemy of any well-ordered polity. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that.

Remove these arguments and you deflate a lot of the PCs strength. Focus on the science, and the window moves right.

How do we "remove these arguments" when the Left is making them? They want to advance the causes of sexual and economic freedom. Defining the unborn as disposable subhumans is convenient for those goals, which is why they do it. Banging the table about "science" doesn't accomplish a f*cking thing. The only thing that stops people short is pointing out that they're advocating for infanticide, which brings us right back to the usual questions of "What is a human, when does human life begin, and is it OK to destroy innocent lives for the sake of convenience?" You can't skate around any of that by hand-waving about "viability".

Choice vs gift, is a religious argument. Same point here. I agree religiously, but it adds strength to the PCs.

Does it? I wonder how many pro-choicers have had their two kids (one boy and one girl, of course), gotten snipped, and then met a couple who desperately wants children of their own but can't conceive for some reason. One doesn't have to be a Christian to understand that children aren't just a lifestyle choice.

And I disagree on contraception. It's the biggest hindrance to the fight. The Church's view on it creates exactly what it is trying to prevent (abortion). It also can prevent the spread of disease and poverty. To think non-Christians or non-Catholics will ever embrace this stance is foolish, and many of those same people only embrace the PC side because of the PL stance on contraception in the first place.

This makes absolutely no sense. The Reformers all agreed that contraception was gravely evil. Every Protestant denomination strictly prohibited it until the Anglicans caved at the Seventh Council of Lambeth in 1930. Though less effective, contraception was very common in the ancient world, and was consistently and universally condemned by the Church from its earliest days. What changed 90 years ago that made them all flip their position?

I've never met a single person who is rightly squeamish about abortion but goes all in simply because the Catholic Church also opposes contraception. "Man, I sometimes think those Catholics might be right about abortion. But then I remember they don't like the Pill either, so fuck 'em... time to donate to PP!" GTFO. This seems to be much more about your inability to see the obvious connection between contraceptives and abortion (and your inability to imagine a world without them) than it does with the coherence of the Catholic position.

Not trying to be difficult. I'd much prefer a different world. We'd be a much better people if we had more Whiskeyjacks. That said, we are where we are. The window is sliding further, and will continue if we don't change our strategy. Unless you're willing to watch it slide till the 2nd coming, something needs to give to save what lives can be saved.

I'm not willing to do that, but I think your strategic advice is completely backward here. Prolifers need to follow the example of the abolitionists and be more confrontational. You can't defeat grave evils like slavery, eugenics and abortion by compromising with it, because that legitimates it.

I'm well schooled on the Church's position. I think it's one of many topics where "man" fills in the blanks not explicitly addressed in the Bible. While I understand most of the "concepts" and desires of the Church in this area, it's a large leap from what we actually see in the Bible, stresses Catholic population growth, and ignores all other factors.

And who gave you the Bible. It wasn't the Apostle John, or Martin f*cking Luther, but the Catholic Church who established the canon and determined which books were inspired and which weren't. So it's pretty rich to hear you try to establish yourself as the authoritative interpreter here against the very institution that gave you the book.

Is God really against families planning the timing, and simply expect them not to have sex until them. Does God really expect non-Christians in AIDS riddled areas to simply abstain all together or deserve death if they don't. In over populated areas, people should continue to populate regardless of the detriment it creates. Should we expect families in extreme poverty to not have sex or continue to increase the poverty condition they are already under.

NFP is very effective for delaying pregnancy until another child can be accommodated (and it doesn't have any nasty chemical side effects for your wife!) Yes, God does expect people in all those other situations to simply abstain. St. Paul makes it quite clear 1 Corinthians 7 that the celibate religious state is superior to marriage. But Protestants have largely lost sight of that now. That's why you shouldn't follow a horny apostate monk instead of the successor of Peter. Your inability to imagine a world in which anyone is capable of controlling their sexual impulses is uh, really something.

Apropos of nothing:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">i take birth control so i can have sex but it makes me more depressed so i take anti depressants and they kill my sex drive and then i can’t have sex and then</p>— Danya (@dxxnya) <a href="https://twitter.com/dxxnya/status/1198400845110480897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

I made no reference to souls, pain sensitivity, or brain function. The latter two are things Progressives try to use to justify first-term abortions. But there's no way to argue to use those arguments that doesn't open the door to euthanizing the mentally-handicapped and other vulnerable classes of people. It's already happening in Europe. Either your value inheres in your humanity and every person is entitled to legal protection (from conception to natural death) on that basis, or you're only valuable if you check certain arbitrary boxes, and those with more power than you can legally liquidate you if they find it convenient.

You look at all things through a very Catholic or theological lens. That's not a dig, it's just how you approach life and I admire you for it. It is however not how most view things. My primary point was, and continues to be, the PL all or nothing, and coupling with things like birth control is a strategy that is not, and will not win.

I haven't cited the Bible, the Catechism or a single encyclical thus far. And I don't have to. That murder is a gross violation of the Natural Law is readily apparent through reason alone, unaided by divine revelation.

You don't have to cite any of it, but your inclinations are transparent. Most people have zero clue what Natural Law is, and aren't making the connections that you are. They don't attach birth control to abortion, or things like eugenics, etc.. While you and I understand the relation, it's Greek to most. Linking those things or tying to be too intellectual loses over half the audience. Meanwhile the progressives attack things like BC at an elementary level and win audience.

The Catholic Church's position on this issue is totally coherent, and could never be used to justify something like chattel slavery or the Holocaust. Which is a lot more than I can say for the Progressive position, or any squishy compromise that treats legal abortion as a reasonable position that ought to be compromised with.

Would you have advised abolitionists in the early 19th century that their insistence on complete prohibition was unreasonable? Lots of Americans made similar arguments, but in hindsight they were clearly wrong. One cannot compromise with an intrinsic evil.

Oof. So you want to wave away the slavery comparison by insisting that "It's complicated?" How about the Holocaust? Every time one group seeks to define a vulnerable minority as something less than fully human, mass murder has been the result. And humans being what they are, power and greed are always important factors. But I don't see how you can say that chattel slavery and the Holocaust were definitely super evil, but ~60 million American babies killed since Roe v. Wade is merely "complicated".

IIRC, you and I went down the rabbit hole on slavery. I was actually critical of the Bible's and the Church's acceptance of levels of slavery, while you defended. And relative to this debate, I'm not using the "it's complicated" argument. I think you however did when defending the Church's historical stance. I, in this conversation said "slavery is obviously immoral", but the analogy or comparison is a bad one (to abortion). Mostly because the progressives were on the other side of the coin. My observation about the factors of power, representation, and taxation has no bearing on the morality of slavery itself. To be perfectly clear, slavery is absolutely evil..... Even the slavery in ancient times that the Bible does not condemn.

You may recall that I serve on the board for one of the largest crisis pregnancy centers in Phoenix. I have prayed outside of abortion clinics frequently, and I've never personally seen Bible-quoting or shaming. I know it happens, and it's a shame that some pro-life activists adopt such tactics, but you could have leveled the same charges at the abolitionists. John Brown probably could have been more effective with a bit more restraint, but I'm not inclined to blame those who have to take up arms in the face of such radical evil.

I did not know you served. It's another thing to admire. All I can say, is it's a bit different here in the South. It's been years since my experiences, so perhaps it's changed.

Not true. Every embryology text book taken up by 1st year med students agrees that human life begins at conception, because that's the point at which a new, genetically-unique, individual is created. It is an absolute bright-line definition that has never been in doubt since modern embryology took off a couple hundred years ago. The only reason there's any "debate" over this basic universally accepted medical definition of when human life begins is due to powerful interest groups who want to exclude certain vulnerable minorities from legal protection for political reasons.

I agree with you. But there are several other arguments from others. While I disagree with them, as do you, many do not. Here's just a few of many attempts at mental gymnastics.

https://rewire.news/article/2012/11/04/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0/
https://slate.com/human-interest/20...-christian-right-the-answer-is-over-time.html

It's really not. I've got two non-Christian friends (philosophically they're both basically Stoics) who accept it for various reasons. One believes elites have a moral obligation to reproduce, and the other is convinced that contraceptives are a big reason for plummeting birth rates across the West. No civilization can long survive whose citizens don't take responsibility for themselves and restrain their passions. Birth control undermines both, and is thus the enemy of any well-ordered polity. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that.

Sounds like both are intellectuals. Communicating a thought process like the first (elites have a...) is almost begging for Bernie Sanders to start waving his hand. And try explaining a well-ordered polity at a house project in Atlanta. You've lost at the first sentence.

How do we "remove these arguments" when the Left is making them? They want to advance the causes of sexual and economic freedom. Defining the unborn as disposable subhumans is convenient for those goals, which is why they do it. Banging the table about "science" doesn't accomplish a f*cking thing. The only thing that stops people short is pointing out that they're advocating for infanticide, which brings us right back to the usual questions of "What is a human, when does human life begin, and is it OK to destroy innocent lives for the sake of convenience?" You can't skate around any of that by hand-waving about "viability".

Educating a populace on basic science is far more effective than talking to them about well-ordered polity, or shaming them for convenience. Showing them a second trimester baby that survives is more impactful than trying to communicate the exclusion of certain vulnerable minorities from legal protection.

Does it? I wonder how many pro-choicers have had their two kids (one boy and one girl, of course), gotten snipped, and then met a couple who desperately wants children of their own but can't conceive for some reason. One doesn't have to be a Christian to understand that children aren't just a lifestyle choice.

And those that would do anything for a child are also condemned when they try IVF.

This makes absolutely no sense. The Reformers all agreed that contraception was gravely evil. Every Protestant denomination strictly prohibited it until the Anglicans caved at the Seventh Council of Lambeth in 1930. Though less effective, contraception was very common in the ancient world, and was consistently and universally condemned by the Church from its earliest days. What changed 90 years ago that made them all flip their position?

The condemnation didn't work then, and it's not going to work now. The point is that coupling it with the anti abortion movement only provides an advantage to the PC crowd.

I've never met a single person who is rightly squeamish about abortion but goes all in simply because the Catholic Church also opposes contraception. "Man, I sometimes think those Catholics might be right about abortion. But then I remember they don't like the Pill either, so fuck 'em... time to donate to PP!" GTFO. This seems to be much more about your inability to see the obvious connection between contraceptives and abortion (and your inability to imagine a world without them) than it does with the coherence of the Catholic position.

Most Christians I know, including Catholics, simply ignore all teaching on contraception. It doesn't even register. That said, PP uses it as a means of mainstreaming. They hide their true intent behind the mask of contraception. Remove contraception from the conversation, and PP can no longer hide.

I'm not willing to do that, but I think your strategic advice is completely backward here. Prolifers need to follow the example of the abolitionists and be more confrontational. You can't defeat grave evils like slavery, eugenics and abortion by compromising with it, because that legitimates it.

I agree PLs need to be more vocal, but they need to sharpen and simplify their message.

And who gave you the Bible. It wasn't the Apostle John, or Martin f*cking Luther, but the Catholic Church who established the canon and determined which books were inspired and which weren't. So it's pretty rich to hear you try to establish yourself as the authoritative interpreter here against the very institution that gave you the book.

I'm far from an authority. I just don't see the institution as you do. I respect your view, but I also am unwilling to do the mental gymnastics necessary give them a pass on all the horrible things they have done through the years, while also believing in all things they write were divinely inspired.

NFP is very effective for delaying pregnancy until another child can be accommodated (and it doesn't have any nasty chemical side effects for your wife!) Yes, God does expect people in all those other situations to simply abstain. St. Paul makes it quite clear 1 Corinthians 7 that the celibate religious state is superior to marriage. But Protestants have largely lost sight of that now. That's why you shouldn't follow a horny apostate monk instead of the successor of Peter. Your inability to imagine a world in which anyone is capable of controlling their sexual impulses is uh, really something.

I can imagine it. It's simply not realistic.

NFP vs contraception, and the open to life vs closed to life argument is more mental gymnastics to me. Contraceptives can be used in both open and closed conditions. NFP can be used in both as well. So if the intent is open, why does it matter?

Rounding this all up..... I liken the issue to saving the most I can, as soon as I can. If I'm dealing with a murderer who has killed 100 people every single year for the last 100 years, and I have a chance to start saving 40 each per year knowing I can't save them all...... , I'm not going to keep telling the murderer that he's wrong (which is futile) and let all 100 die. If I can somehow, in any way save 40, that's 40 beautiful souls that can flourish on God's earth.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

PC vs PL debate is pretty easy, imo. It's a separate being, with it's own DNA and blood type, living and growing inside of a woman. This is 100%, without question, a human life. Therefore, its naturally gifted, inalienable rights, should be respected.

The timeline of gestational development is completely irrelevant. If it's a human life at 32 weeks, why is it not a human life at 1 week? Viability is a moving target and the argument gets shattered into a thousand pieces when the same questions are asked regarding any person under a coma or being kept alive on a vent, etc.

The personhood debate is irrelevant. It's a goal post shift that's been done during any era of mass genocide. Using "personhood" to decide your socially-accepted level of humanity and when you do or do not have basic human rights only allows the murderous crowd to justify their killings. Native Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. African Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Jews, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Unborn babies, sub-human, no rights, kill them Etc, etc.

PC people make this about women's rights. It's selfish and ignorant beyond belief.

I agree with YJ that a problem PL'ers have is the message isn't dumb-downed enough. It's not blatant enough. And it doesn't always speak in the same secular language that the PC crowd desperately needs to hear in order to understand this topic. Ben Shapiro lately has been very graphic in his approach to fight abortion. "No more euphemisms," he says often.

With that said, I also agree with YJ, that the focus should be first on abortion. Get that figured out first.

Also, perhaps I'm ignorant to other treatment options, but I know BC is used for more health conditions that just pregnancy prevention. So how do you handle those situations?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Anyone have cliff notes on this WSJ piece? I'm being cheap...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/making-capitalism-great-again-11574726835

 

[Wild Bill]

Most Christians I know, including Catholics, simply ignore all teaching on contraception. It doesn't even register. That said, PP uses it as a means of mainstreaming. They hide their true intent behind the mask of contraception. Remove contraception from the conversation, and PP can no longer hide.

And where has that gotten them? Right now, it appears to be a dying religion. The Catholic Church lost the culture war in America, and now they're in a difficult position. I'm not sure embracing the ideas of the "winners" of the culture war (thereby legitimizing them) is the path to revival.

If you want birth control and hypersexualization, you can find it anywhere - TV, school, etc. Perhaps the better path is for Christians to give people an alternative. I understand going against the wishes of the elite will be an uphill battle but people are looking for an alternative, and as we continue on our moral descent, those number will only increase and the need will intensify.

I don't have to do anything more than take a walk around my office to see the negative effects birth control has played on people. There are plenty of bitter childless women in their late 30s who were liberated by the pill and a paycheck. Of course it's difficult for them to admit they were scammed and you can't talk about it without being ousted from polite society but it's very obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

[Legacy]

I favor government staying out of individual's choices regarding birth control and abortion. Those are matters of conscience.

 

[IrishLax]

PC vs PL debate is pretty easy, imo. It's a separate being, with it's own DNA and blood type, living and growing inside of a woman. This is 100%, without question, a human life. Therefore, its naturally gifted, inalienable rights, should be respected.

The timeline of gestational development is completely irrelevant. If it's a human life at 32 weeks, why is it not a human life at 1 week? Viability is a moving target and the argument gets shattered into a thousand pieces when the same questions are asked regarding any person under a coma or being kept alive on a vent, etc.

The personhood debate is irrelevant. It's a goal post shift that's been done during any era of mass genocide. Using "personhood" to decide your socially-accepted level of humanity and when you do or do not have basic human rights only allows the murderous crowd to justify their killings. Native Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. African Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Jews, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Unborn babies, sub-human, no rights, kill them Etc, etc.

PC people make this about women's rights. It's selfish and ignorant beyond belief.

I agree with YJ that a problem PL'ers have is the message isn't dumb-downed enough. It's not blatant enough. And it doesn't always speak in the same secular language that the PC crowd desperately needs to hear in order to understand this topic. Ben Shapiro lately has been very graphic in his approach to fight abortion. "No more euphemisms," he says often.

With that said, I also agree with YJ, that the focus should be first on abortion. Get that figured out first.

Also, perhaps I'm ignorant to other treatment options, but I know BC is used for more health conditions that just pregnancy prevention. So how do you handle those situations?

Then why don't you have to have funeral for miscarriage in month #2? And you can answer that question through either a societal or religious lens if you want. The Catholic church has existed forever and they have never equally applied customs/sacraments/rules/whatever to "life" vs an actual baby. Right now you "can" elect to have a funeral for a miscarried baby, but even that is a sliding scale. How many priests do you see having funerals for the souls that were 1 week into gestation before they died? Because there are literally millions of 1st trimester miscarriages every year.

The whole idea that "life starts at conception" is clean and easy logic. It's also never been how humans in any society have ever actually behaved at any point in recorded history.

 

[Wild Bill]

I favor government staying out of individual's choices regarding birth control and abortion. Those are matters of conscience.

Whiskey touches on your stance in a previous post with respect to abortion:

My point was this: one side largely believed that Africans are human and should not be subjected to slavery; the other side believed they were subhuman, and could thus be treated like chattel. Those were the two poles of American political opinion at the time, and that resulted in a bunch of "centrist" compromises that provided cover for indefensible policies. That's what happens when you try to do liberal politics without guardrails against intrinsic evil, and we're seeing the same dynamic playing out now with abortion.

Maybe you find it compelling, maybe you don't.

Regading contraception - The problem with looking at the issue as one of individual liberty is that it fails to contemplate the impact on the nation as a whole or our culture. It's difficult for me to pull myself back and consider the damage done b/c I like the freedom to make my own decisions just as much, if not more, than the next guy.

This libertarian approach to the issue plays a role in forming our policies, including some that you more than likely disagree with, i.e., we do not have federal laws mandating paid family leave, medical expenses of pregnancy are astronomical and aren't subsdized, welfare is impossible to receive in many instances, etc. By and large we take the you can't afford a kid, don't have one approach rather than actually considering ways to promote family formation. It's just easier this way - we can keep more money in our pockets and tell everyone how free we are. What's the social cost? How do you build and sustain a nation like this?

We are a society obsessed with liberty but care very little about duty.

 

[Irish YJ]

And where has that gotten them? Right now, it appears to be a dying religion. The Catholic Church lost the culture war in America, and now they're in a difficult position. I'm not sure embracing the ideas of the "winners" of the culture war (thereby legitimizing them) is the path to revival.

If you want birth control and hypersexualization, you can find it anywhere - TV, school, etc. Perhaps the better path is for Christians to give people an alternative. I understand going against the wishes of the elite will be an uphill battle but people are looking for an alternative, and as we continue on our moral descent, those number will only increase and the need will intensify.

I don't have to do anything more than take a walk around my office to see the negative effects birth control has played on people. There are plenty of bitter childless women in their late 30s who were liberated by the pill and a paycheck. Of course it's difficult for them to admit they were scammed and you can't talk about it without being ousted from polite society but it's very obvious to anyone paying attention.

There's a lot to unpack in the above, but I'll keep my answer simple.
I agree with a lot of it indirectly, but think its flawed "directly".

That said, I don't blame the pill for bitter childless women. There's a lot you can blame for this, and the pill is pretty far down the list. One could also conversely argue that lack of the pill or condoms have led to poverty and disease.

I also agree that folks are looking for alternatives, I'm just not sure they are looking at the Church as one of those alternatives. That's another topic all together.

In terms of women in the workplace. I see far more women executives these days, and most have children. One of my closest friends responsibly planned both a family and a career. Her career is still thriving, as are both her kids (both in elitist NE colleges playing sports). She grew up Catholic, but used BC until the time was right for her family. To answer your initial question, her planning "got" her everything she wanted including kids and her career. Like anything, you can be anecdotal to support your beliefs, but chances are there's just as much anecdotal "evidence" out there to also debunk it.

 

[Irish YJ]

PC vs PL debate is pretty easy, imo. It's a separate being, with it's own DNA and blood type, living and growing inside of a woman. This is 100%, without question, a human life. Therefore, its naturally gifted, inalienable rights, should be respected.

The timeline of gestational development is completely irrelevant. If it's a human life at 32 weeks, why is it not a human life at 1 week? Viability is a moving target and the argument gets shattered into a thousand pieces when the same questions are asked regarding any person under a coma or being kept alive on a vent, etc.

The personhood debate is irrelevant. It's a goal post shift that's been done during any era of mass genocide. Using "personhood" to decide your socially-accepted level of humanity and when you do or do not have basic human rights only allows the murderous crowd to justify their killings. Native Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. African Americans, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Jews, sub-human, no rights, kill them. Unborn babies, sub-human, no rights, kill them Etc, etc.

PC people make this about women's rights. It's selfish and ignorant beyond belief.

I agree with YJ that a problem PL'ers have is the message isn't dumb-downed enough. It's not blatant enough. And it doesn't always speak in the same secular language that the PC crowd desperately needs to hear in order to understand this topic. Ben Shapiro lately has been very graphic in his approach to fight abortion. "No more euphemisms," he says often.

With that said, I also agree with YJ, that the focus should be first on abortion. Get that figured out first.

Also, perhaps I'm ignorant to other treatment options, but I know BC is used for more health conditions that just pregnancy prevention. So how do you handle those situations?

To add, my attempt is not to defend any type of abortion. It's all evil to me from conception forward. My primary point is, this is a war to save as many as possible. Trying to fight a war on 10 fronts is far more difficult than one and only results in more casualties.

Sharpen and purify the message. Dumb it down and go for the jugular. You can't communicate to the masses in intellectual and theological terms. Be clear, be visual, and minimize things that will be turned against you.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Then why don't you have to have funeral for miscarriage in month #2? And you can answer that question through either a societal or religious lens if you want. The Catholic church has existed forever and they have never equally applied customs/sacraments/rules/whatever to "life" vs an actual baby. Right now you "can" elect to have a funeral for a miscarried baby, but even that is a sliding scale. How many priests do you see having funerals for the souls that were 1 week into gestation before they died? Because there are literally millions of 1st trimester miscarriages every year.

The whole idea that "life starts at conception" is clean and easy logic. It's also never been how humans in any society have ever actually behaved at any point in recorded history.

Seems this context fits more with a debate surrounding personhood, no? Not sure how it pertains the point I was trying to make about viability and the timeline, ie. it's baby in week 1 and it's a baby in week 32.

Not sure I see your point regarding funerals. They aren't mandatory for every dying member of a society. People elect to celebrate (or not celebrate) the passing of a life on their own terms. I know plenty of people (my wife and myself included) who mourned both miscarriages, not with a funeral, but with a prayer. Because a priest wasn't involved, does that make our moment of mourning any different than standing over a grave site? In our eyes, we lost what would've been our child to hold and to care for.

Also perplexed on the comparison between elective abortion and natural miscarriages in general. If you could elaborate, please. (I don't consider myself an intellectual. Most people talk circles around me. I'm just enjoying the discussion while always looking to learn)

 

[Irish YJ]

I favor government staying out of individual's choices regarding birth control and abortion. Those are matters of conscience.

And yet most liberals favor big government in most other areas.

Outraged at the death penalty, happy to kill a baby at 9 months.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You look at all things through a very Catholic or theological lens. That's not a dig, it's just how you approach life and I admire you for it. It is however not how most view things.

Regardless of whether or not people are aware of this, every law, public policy, judicial ruling, etc. has behind it a particular view of what is good, true and beautiful, what a human being is, what a life well lived looks like, etc. "Neutrality" is not possible. So you either affirmatively choose your own theology and evaluate things through that lens, or you tacitly accept the theology on offer through popular culture and our law.

But you raise a good point here, because the majority will always opt for the latter option, which is why the old exhortations from True Conservatives™ to "focus on culture instead of politics" is really terrible advice. Culture is always driven by elites, and the law is powerful instructor. So once your enemies have taken over the State, the universities, and the entertainment industry, you've got no option other than fighting vigorously to regain that high ground.

You don't have to cite any of it, but your inclinations are transparent. Most people have zero clue what Natural Law is, and aren't making the connections that you are. They don't attach birth control to abortion, or things like eugenics, etc.. While you and I understand the relation, it's Greek to most. Linking those things or tying to be too intellectual loses over half the audience. Meanwhile the progressives attack things like BC at an elementary level and win audience.

The connection between abortion and birth control is basically a taboo subject within the prolife movement. No one discusses it because the Catholics are the only ones whose doctrine still prohibits it, and few of them follow that teaching anyway. Where are you seeing prolife causes losing otherwise winnable battles because of a focus on contraceptives?

I did not know you served. It's another thing to admire. All I can say, is it's a bit different here in the South. It's been years since my experiences, so perhaps it's changed.

I wasn't fishing for compliments or trying to imply you're not qualified to comment on this subject. But I've been on the frontlines of this battle for a while now, and I'm not seeing Bible bashing, shaming, or any mention of contraception at all. So your strategic suggestions don't make sense to me.

Sounds like both are intellectuals. Communicating a thought process like the first (elites have a...) is almost begging for Bernie Sanders to start waving his hand. And try explaining a well-ordered polity at a house project in Atlanta. You've lost at the first sentence.

Obviously the rhetoric has to be tailored to the audience. In Atlanta, I'd probably focus on Sanger and the racist/eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood for African-Americans, Scripture for white evangelicals, and evidence regarding the irrefutable humanity of the child in utero for everyone else.

Educating a populace on basic science is far more effective than talking to them about well-ordered polity, or shaming them for convenience. Showing them a second trimester baby that survives is more impactful than trying to communicate the exclusion of certain vulnerable minorities from legal protection.

Again, what "basic science" is going to counter Planned Parenthood's talking points here? Emphasizing the baby's ability to survive outside the womb puts personal autonomy front and center, which both strengthens the Progressive position (sexual and economic liberation) and undermines the prolife position.

And those that would do anything for a child are also condemned when they try IVF.

IVF is condemned because every successful implantation results in lots of destroyed embryos. There's no way to endorse that procedure without completely throwing respect for human life out the window. If a couple can't conceive, they can always adopt!

The condemnation didn't work then, and it's not going to work now. The point is that coupling it with the anti abortion movement only provides an advantage to the PC crowd.

It did work for the first 1900 years of Christendom, even post-Reformation. But as I mentioned above, your belief that the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is somehow hindering the prolife movement bewilders me.

Most Christians I know, including Catholics, simply ignore all teaching on contraception. It doesn't even register. That said, PP uses it as a means of mainstreaming. They hide their true intent behind the mask of contraception. Remove contraception from the conversation, and PP can no longer hide.

Contraception isn't a "mask" for the what they do, but an integral part of their mission. Sanger's goal was to prevent America's "undesirables" from procreating--the poor, Catholic, racial minorities, etc. The easiest way to do that was to provide them with contraceptives. Abortion was the backstop for when contraceptives weren't used or failed.

I'm far from an authority. I just don't see the institution as you do. I respect your view, but I also am unwilling to do the mental gymnastics necessary give them a pass on all the horrible things they have done through the years, while also believing in all things they write were divinely inspired.

I'm tempted to ask you to elaborate, but I doubt it'll help us move this conversation forward.

NFP vs contraception, and the open to life vs closed to life argument is more mental gymnastics to me. Contraceptives can be used in both open and closed conditions. NFP can be used in both as well. So if the intent is open, why does it matter?

"My grandfather could die of natural causes, or I could smother him with a pillow. If the end result is the same, why does it matter?"

Rounding this all up..... I liken the issue to saving the most I can, as soon as I can. If I'm dealing with a murderer who has killed 100 people every single year for the last 100 years, and I have a chance to start saving 40 each per year knowing I can't save them all...... , I'm not going to keep telling the murderer that he's wrong (which is futile) and let all 100 die. If I can somehow, in any way save 40, that's 40 beautiful souls that can flourish on God's earth.

This is the core of our disagreement, so I'd prefer we focus on this going forward. If I understand your analogy correctly, you think the prolife movement could prevent a certain number of abortions by focusing only on that issue, but is instead saving virtually none because they're allowing the Catholic Church's condemnation of contraception to muddy the waters. In response, I'd argue:

• Contraception is a taboo subject within the prolife movement, because Catholics are the only ones who still hold to the historical Christian doctrine, and the coalition includes evangelicals, nones, and all sorts of others. This just isn't a thing.
• Even if it was, insisting that contraception be taken off the table before abortion is addressed is akin to insisting that I'll only consider chemo therapy to treat my lung cancer if my pack-a-day smoking habit isn't mentioned. It's kind of pointless, because you're treating a symptom instead of the underlying disease.

Also, perhaps I'm ignorant to other treatment options, but I know BC is used for more health conditions that just pregnancy prevention. So how do you handle those situations?

"The pill" is a combination of hormones. It does frequently get prescribed for women with irregular menstrual cycles or symptoms caused by hormonal imbalances. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It becomes a problem when doctors start prescribing these chemicals for women en masse, without any legitimate medical reason other than the woman's desire to fornicate without consequences. This is the only instance where we intentionally subvert a healthy and normal bodily function. It causes all sorts of nasty side effects (depression, blood clots, etc.) and makes them sexually available to men without any of the attendant responsibilities that should accompany the act.

I favor government staying out of individual's choices regarding birth control and abortion. Those are matters of conscience.

Do you have a principled method for determining between "matters of conscience" and issues that are subject to government regulation? If the state isn't competent to tell a woman she can't kill her baby, I don't see how it should be able to tax her, provide her with medical care, etc. It seems obvious that the state can and must do both.

Then why don't you have to have funeral for miscarriage in month #2? And you can answer that question through either a societal or religious lens if you want. The Catholic church has existed forever and they have never equally applied customs/sacraments/rules/whatever to "life" vs an actual baby. Right now you "can" elect to have a funeral for a miscarried baby, but even that is a sliding scale. How many priests do you see having funerals for the souls that were 1 week into gestation before they died? Because there are literally millions of 1st trimester miscarriages every year.

The whole idea that "life starts at conception" is clean and easy logic. It's also never been how humans in any society have ever actually behaved at any point in recorded history.

Lots of first trimester miscarriages occur without the mother even knowing she was pregnant. And as BBG touched upon, most couples won't announce a pregnancy until the first trimester has passed, so when an early miscarriage occurs, it's far easier to mourn it privately than to share that pain with one's extended family. Miscarriage is a real loss, with profound psychological consequences for the mother. I do recommend that such parents name, mourn and (when possible) bury the lost child.

 

[Legacy]

I favor government staying out of individual's choices regarding birth control and abortion. Those are matters of conscience.

Do you have a principled method for determining between "matters of conscience" and issues that are subject to government regulation? If the state isn't competent to tell a woman she can't kill her baby, I don't see how it should be able to tax her, provide her with medical care, etc. It seems obvious that the state can and must do both.

You have more confidence that government can act in a principled manner or can reach a consensus reflecting Americans' beliefs than I do. I understand you to be an advocate for the underpinning of government and regulation to be matters of the principles you hold.

 

[Irish YJ]

Regardless of whether or not people are aware of this, every law, public policy, judicial ruling, etc. has behind it a particular view of what is good, true and beautiful, what a human being is, what a life well lived looks like, etc. "Neutrality" is not possible. So you either affirmatively choose your own theology and evaluate things through that lens, or you tacitly accept the theology on offer through popular culture and our law.

But you raise a good point here, because the majority will always opt for the latter option, which is why the old exhortations from True Conservatives™ to "focus on culture instead of politics" is really terrible advice. Culture is always driven by elites, and the law is powerful instructor. So once your enemies have taken over the State, the universities, and the entertainment industry, you've got no option other than fighting vigorously to regain that high ground.

I disagree on the "every law" aspect. You can not apply this across the board. The world is full of laws that are contrary to what is good, true, etc..

On neutrality, I disagree as well. I'm not sure what concept of neutrality you are trying to convey, so a may be missing the boat. But IMO... One does not have to be on either end of all issues. Once can simply "not care" or disagree with both polar opposites. One can say that the lack of neutrality has caused extremes leading to wars and suffering. There are lots of "middle" or "neutral" out there that don't buy all things church/religion, but also detest "culture".

The connection between abortion and birth control is basically a taboo subject within the prolife movement. No one discusses it because the Catholics are the only ones whose doctrine still prohibits it, and few of them follow that teaching anyway. Where are you seeing prolife causes losing otherwise winnable battles because of a focus on contraceptives?

PP uses it to muddy the waters. You have cases like Hobby Lobby were the topic was front and center. Most don't understand it was about abortifacients, but most don't care either.

Whether it's a misconception or not, it's attached to the movement. Or at least it is used by PCers to misdirect.

I wasn't fishing for compliments or trying to imply you're not qualified to comment on this subject. But I've been on the frontlines of this battle for a while now, and I'm not seeing Bible bashing, shaming, or any mention of contraception at all. So your strategic suggestions don't make sense to me.

I'm not suggesting you're fishing for compliments. I'm simply and sincerely complimenting you. Your faith often makes me question my own beliefs, and that's a good thing. No smoke blowing here. I value our exchanges even in our disagreements.

Obviously the rhetoric has to be tailored to the audience. In Atlanta, I'd probably focus on Sanger and the racist/eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood for African-Americans, Scripture for white evangelicals, and evidence regarding the irrefutable humanity of the child in utero for everyone else.

I like the Sanger angle, but overall recommend less intellectual and theological, more punch you in the face dumbed down visuals that will create outrage. Use the same tactics progressives use against them.

Again, what "basic science" is going to counter Planned Parenthood's talking points here? Emphasizing the baby's ability to survive outside the womb puts personal autonomy front and center, which both strengthens the Progressive position (sexual and economic liberation) and undermines the prolife position.

I don't agree that survival outside the womb helps progressives at all.

IVF is condemned because every successful implantation results in lots of destroyed embryos. There's no way to endorse that procedure without completely throwing respect for human life out the window. If a couple can't conceive, they can always adopt!

Through your lens yes. It does not equate to throwing out total respect for human life to most. Right or wrong, most do not see an embryo the way that you do. Many embryos do not survive naturally, yet as LAX posted, a miscarriage is not treated the same as a typical death.

It did work for the first 1900 years of Christendom, even post-Reformation. But as I mentioned above, your belief that the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is somehow hindering the prolife movement bewilders me.

What is proof that it worked for the first 1900 years? Many Popes couldn't even follow the vow of chastity or even NFP yet we think the commons followed suit. I say it's more a lack of contraception, or effective contraception that factored the most.

Contraception isn't a "mask" for the what they do, but an integral part of their mission. Sanger's goal was to prevent America's "undesirables" from procreating--the poor, Catholic, racial minorities, etc. The easiest way to do that was to provide them with contraceptives. Abortion was the backstop for when contraceptives weren't used or failed.

I agree that it was the original mission. I think that mission has morphed into a new PP that is corporatized and taken on a "progressive" and feminist goal.

I'm tempted to ask you to elaborate, but I doubt it'll help us move this conversation forward.

Below is a brainless google, but the history of the Church includes atrocities. I'll leave it at that.
https://www.ranker.com/list/most-unforgivable-things-the-catholic-church-has-done/lea-rose-emery

"My grandfather could die of natural causes, or I could smother him with a pillow. If the end result is the same, why does it matter?"

You're connecting things via philosophy/theology that most people don't even begin to link.

This is the core of our disagreement, so I'd prefer we focus on this going forward. If I understand your analogy correctly, you think the prolife movement could prevent a certain number of abortions by focusing only on that issue, but is instead saving virtually none because they're allowing the Catholic Church's condemnation of contraception to muddy the waters. In response, I'd argue:

• Contraception is a taboo subject within the prolife movement, because Catholics are the only ones who still hold to the historical Christian doctrine, and the coalition includes evangelicals, nones, and all sorts of others. This just isn't a thing.
• Even if it was, insisting that contraception be taken off the table before abortion is addressed is akin to insisting that I'll only consider chemo therapy to treat my lung cancer if my pack-a-day smoking habit isn't mentioned. It's kind of pointless, because you're treating a symptom instead of the underlying disease.

Taboo or not, it's just not how it's viewed. PP couples it as a "control" topic and uses the view of #2 as proof.

Here's my simple short and long term strategy.

Short term
-Hit people with visuals and play on their outrage of late term abortions. Show great stories of 2nd term early births. Show PP's selling of fetal tissue/organs. Hand out condoms while talking about the side effects of abortifacients. No theology, no philosophy. Totally dumbed down and remove as many PP/PC faux arguments as possible.

Medium term (once the window starts moving and you have a more captive audience)
-Move the conversation to earlier fetal development of the nervous system, capability of pain, and consciousness. Educate folks on the history of PP and Sanger history. Introduce methodology for post pregnancy support structure and pain free adoption.

Long term (once more people have humanized earlier fetal development)
-Introduce philosophy and theology. Amp up efforts to rightfully demonize PP.

 

[Irish YJ]

You have more confidence that government can act in a principled manner or can reach a consensus reflecting Americans' beliefs than I do. I understand you to be an advocate for the underpinning of government and regulation to be matters of the principles you hold.

Yet you have confidence in big gov to do many other things.

 

[Legacy]

A Look at Civics Education in the United States (AFT)

Civic knowledge and public engagement are at an all-time low. A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years.1 Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent2 and voter participation has reached its lowest point since 1996.3 Without an understanding of the structure of government, our rights and responsibilities, and the different methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens.

While the 2016 election brought a renewed interest in engagement among youth,4 only 23 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics exam, and achievement levels have virtually stagnated since 1998.5 In addition, the increased focus on math and reading in K–12 education—while critical to preparing all students for success—has pushed out civics and other important subjects. (cont)

Could You Pass A U.S. Citizenship Test? Well, 63 Percent Of Texans Couldn't. (Kut/Austin's NPR station)

Texans, it turns out, don't know their U.S. history. A new study from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found 63 percent of respondents in Texas failed a quiz based on questions from the U.S. citizenship examination.

The 41,000-person survey found roughly four in 10 respondents nationally couldn't pass the 20-question test. Vermont was the only state in which a majority of respondents passed. Texas ranked 40th overall.

The quiz was comprised of civics questions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's list of 100 questions that could be posed to applicants by nationalization test administrators.

But Patrick Riccards, chief of communications for the Wilson Foundation, points out the survey given to the study's respondents is easier than the one actually administered to those noncitizens hoping to nationalize. That 10-question test is administered orally, meaning would-be citizens don't have the benefit of a multiple-choice safety net. Applicants need to answer at least six questions to pass the civics test. (cont)

Vermont named the only state to pass a U.S. History civics test (Burlington Free Press)

Vermonters are often chided for believing they are exceptional, but a survey released Friday showed they actually are better in one area than everybody else: U.S. History.

"Among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Vermonters were the sole group able to pass the multiple-choice test," according to statement from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, an education nonprofit based in Princeton, New Jersey.

Vermont had the best scores, with 53 percent of those surveyed earning a score of 60 percent or higher in civics, according to foundation spokesman Patrick Riccards.

Wyoming was four points behind the Green Mountain State, followed by South Dakota, Montana and Virginia.

Louisiana earned the lowest score with 27 percent able to pass the 20-question quiz. Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi were barely higher. There are 100 questions on a real citizenship exam, not including oral questions. (cont)

(Burlington history teacher, Fran) Brock wondered if there could be a correlation with Vermont's new American population. Serbians, Vietnamese, Bhutanese, Sudanese and other groups successfully studying for citizenship are centered primarily in Chittenden County. The survey was spread across the state, according to Riccards.

Civics (History and Government) Questions for the Naturalization Test (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)

The 100 civics (history and government) questions and answers for the naturalization test are listed below. The civics test is an oral test and the USCIS Officer will ask the applicant up to 10 of the 100 civics questions. An applicant must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly to pass the civics portion of the naturalization test.

 

[Irish YJ]

A Look at Civics Education in the United States (AFT)



Could You Pass A U.S. Citizenship Test? Well, 63 Percent Of Texans Couldn't. (Kut/Austin's NPR station)



Vermont named the only state to pass a U.S. History civics test (Burlington Free Press)





Civics (History and Government) Questions for the Naturalization Test (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Perhaps ed should focus more on ed than politics.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I disagree on the "every law" aspect. You can not apply this across the board. The world is full of laws that are contrary to what is good, true, etc..

On neutrality, I disagree as well. I'm not sure what concept of neutrality you are trying to convey, so a may be missing the boat. But IMO... One does not have to be on either end of all issues. Once can simply "not care" or disagree with both polar opposites. One can say that the lack of neutrality has caused extremes leading to wars and suffering. There are lots of "middle" or "neutral" out there that don't buy all things church/religion, but also detest "culture".

We seem to be speaking past each other here. My point was that every law involves theology because you can't legislate without implicitly adopting answers to questions like: what is a human being; when does life begin; what does a life well-lived look like; etc. So it's not possible to be neutral or merely secular on any issue, let alone one as morally charged as abortion.

And of course there are evil laws. They result when legislators get the answers to those questions wrong, usually as a result of bad theology. But the proper response is never to "get religion out of politics". That just ensures that those in power can pursue their interests more nakedly, and without any guardrails on their policies.

PP uses it to muddy the waters. You have cases like Hobby Lobby were the topic was front and center. Most don't understand it was about abortifacients, but most don't care either.

Whether it's a misconception or not, it's attached to the movement. Or at least it is used by PCers to misdirect.

Can you provide some links to back up this assertion? I'm still not remotely convinced this is a thing. As I mentioned earlier, I've been on the frontlines of this fight for a long time--online, on boards, and on the street--and while I've seen abortion advocates utilize all sorts of bad faith arguments to smear the movement, the Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception is virtually never one of them. Catholics probably account for a plurality of prolifers, but there still aren't enough of us (let alone Catholics who actually hold to the doctrine) to make the argument work against the movement as a whole.

I like the Sanger angle, but overall recommend less intellectual and theological, more punch you in the face dumbed down visuals that will create outrage. Use the same tactics progressives use against them.

I'm not sure "Planned Parenthood is racist, and killing babies is evil" can be dumbed down much more.

I don't agree that survival outside the womb helps progressives at all.

It does, because only 1.2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. So you're advocating that Catholics: (1) abandon a piece of doctrine that hasn't changed for two millenia and that directly contributes to the demand for abortion; and (2) give up on stopping 98.8% of abortions simply because technology can't yet keep the child alive ex utero, in order to... more successfully advocate against the 1.2% of abortions that occur post-viability? Would be one of the most Pyrrhic victories of all time.

Through your lens yes. It does not equate to throwing out total respect for human life to most. Right or wrong, most do not see an embryo the way that you do. Many embryos do not survive naturally, yet as LAX posted, a miscarriage is not treated the same as a typical death.

"Most people" in the ante bellum South didn't see Africans as fully human either. That doesn't mean they were right. The difference between abortion and miscarriage is the difference between getting murdered and dying of natural causes; you don't need a philosophy degree to grasp that. And I already addressed Lax's argument about the lack of funerals for early miscarriages above. It's not dispositive of anything.

What is proof that it worked for the first 1900 years? Many Popes couldn't even follow the vow of chastity or even NFP yet we think the commons followed suit. I say it's more a lack of contraception, or effective contraception that factored the most.

What do you mean "worked"? Murders still occur even though every decent human civilization in history has passed laws against homicide. That doesn't mean we ought to declare such laws a failure and get rid of them. Murder would be a lot more common if it wasn't legally prohibited and punished harshly. Bans on contraception were similar. Yes, some people flouted the law, but bans mostly suppressed its use, and thereby did a lot to shore up marriage and the family. But since SCOTUS declared state bans on contraception unconstitutional in 1965, our birth rate has plummeted, divorce rates have skyrocketed, and 21 million American kids (nearly 1 in 3) are now being raised by a single parent. That didn't happen by accident.

I agree that it was the original mission. I think that mission has morphed into a new PP that is corporatized and taken on a "progressive" and feminist goal.

It's always been Progressive institution. Despite being a racist monster, Sanger is still held up as feminist hero among the Girl Scouts and other such organizations. There's no way to peel off contraception from that and just focus on abortion. They're inextricably linked.

Below is a brainless google, but the history of the Church includes atrocities. I'll leave it at that.
https://www.ranker.com/list/most-unforgivable-things-the-catholic-church-has-done/lea-rose-emery

That is /r/atheism level stuff, YJ. Read up on the Black Legend, and scrutinize the anti-Catholic polemics you come across online. We're still an Anglo-Protestant country, so I sometimes find half-truths and outright fabrications about the Church in my kids' history books even today.

You're connecting things via philosophy/theology that most people don't even begin to link.

You don't think normal people can grok the difference between getting murdered and dying of natural causes?

Here's my simple short and long term strategy.

Short term
-Hit people with visuals and play on their outrage of late term abortions. Show great stories of 2nd term early births. Show PP's selling of fetal tissue/organs. Hand out condoms while talking about the side effects of abortifacients. No theology, no philosophy. Totally dumbed down and remove as many PP/PC faux arguments as possible.

Medium term (once the window starts moving and you have a more captive audience)
-Move the conversation to earlier fetal development of the nervous system, capability of pain, and consciousness. Educate folks on the history of PP and Sanger history. Introduce methodology for post pregnancy support structure and pain free adoption.

Long term (once more people have humanized earlier fetal development)
-Introduce philosophy and theology. Amp up efforts to rightfully demonize PP.

Many of the Protestant-led crisis pregnancy centers around here do something similar to this. And it makes sense for them. But I've seen no evidence that my (crypto-Catholic) clinic would be more effective at what it does by getting squishy on contraceptives and handing out condoms.

 

[Legacy]

Perhaps ed should focus more on ed than politics.

Perhaps governments are heeding the student test results on their knowledge of U.S. history and civics. In 2016, North Dakota became the second state requiring their students must pass the citizenship test for naturalization. That number is now up to fifteen. ND and the others require a score of 70 out of 100 questions, while immigrants need a score of 60.

More than 30 states have established new Civics proficiency requirements, more than half have incorporated the citizenship test into their assessment practices; some use it as a standalone test, while others use parts of the exam, or have added more material to create customized tests, according to the Civics Education Initiative. Many more are considering legislative proposals to improve civics knowledge.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become involved outlining their program in:
The Business Case for Civics Education

Their Foundation hosted CIVICS FORWARD "to discuss the future of civic education, civic engagement, and civil discourse in America. We brought together leaders in business, education, and government to discuss how we can prepare the next generation for the awesome responsibilities they bear in a democracy."

Education, Government and Business all working together towards improving civics and history education in students.

 

[Irish YJ]

Perhaps governments are heeding the student test results on their knowledge of U.S. history and civics. In 2016, North Dakota became the second state requiring their students must pass the citizenship test for naturalization. That number is now up to fifteen. ND and the others require a score of 70 out of 100 questions, while immigrants need a score of 60.

More than 30 states have established new Civics proficiency requirements, more than half have incorporated the citizenship test into their assessment practices; some use it as a standalone test, while others use parts of the exam, or have added more material to create customized tests, according to the Civics Education Initiative. Many more are considering legislative proposals to improve civics knowledge.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become involved outlining their program in:
The Business Case for Civics Education

Their Foundation hosted CIVICS FORWARD "to discuss the future of civic education, civic engagement, and civil discourse in America. We brought together leaders in business, education, and government to discuss how we can prepare the next generation for the awesome responsibilities they bear in a democracy."

Education, Government and Business all working together towards improving civics and history education in students.

Should we really trust gov to be successful. Given horrible test results in a lot of states in basic English and Math areas, I struggle to get my hopes up.

For instance, in Cali, only 50% met or exceeded requirements in English. Only 40% in Math. What should we project for civics?

 

[Legacy]

Should we really trust gov to be successful. Given horrible test results in a lot of states in basic English and Math areas, I struggle to get my hopes up.

For instance, in Cali, only 50% met or exceeded requirements in English. Only 40% in Math. What should we project for civics?

National Report Card - State Profiles
. - sortable

State and local govs are usually better able to address their individual issues. Natural-born citizens civics knowledge based on testing should meet or exceed those of naturalized citizens.

 

[Bishop2b5]

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1199473430338375681?s=19

CNN's Brian Stelter tweeted something stupid this week about Trump and the media and gets relentlessly roasted. The replies and comments are great.

 

[Irish YJ]

National Report Card - State Profiles
. - sortable

State and local govs are usually better able to address their individual issues. Natural-born citizens civics knowledge based on testing should meet or exceed those of naturalized citizens.

What about state and local govs who historically have poor performance?

Comparing states with similar size / demographics like TX and Cali. TX does a pretty decent job comparatively while Cali is pretty bad. While I'm all for letting states do what they want in most areas, there should be some type of minimum expectation.

https://caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov/caa...County=00&lstDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000

 

[BGIF]

National Report Card - State Profiles
. - sortable

State and local govs are usually better able to address their individual issues. Natural-born citizens civics knowledge based on testing should meet or exceed those of naturalized citizens.

This chart and explanation sounds like something written by the NEA.

Note the groupings:

• 15 jurisdictions performed significantly higher than National public
• 20 jurisdictions not significantly different than National public
• 17 jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public
• 1 jurisdiction no assessment /data not available

For Math the National Average is 240 points out 500. In other words the National Average is 48% of the possible score. Pretty crummy.

The graphic notes the first grouping "performed significantly higher than National public". Actually the highest score was 250, a whopping 10 points higher than the average. How about a round of applause for the best not even earning an inflated C+ in a nation of C students.

Now look at the opposite grouping, "jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public". The Lowest Score was 230. Again a whopping 10 points (but this time) lower than the National average.

While the comment is make about states and local governments addressing their individual issues, across this wide country of ours, the results from high to low vary by a total of 10 points from average. A spread of 20 points out of a possible 500 points. Our "best" perform all of 4% better than the average. Our "worst" perform only 4% lower than the average.

Let's give our state and local governments, our teachers, and the parents, etc an attaboy, or more P.C., a participation trophy for providing an education where everyone is almost equally mediocre.

AOC, Bernie, et al, are demanding free college. Why? Our state and local governments "who know their individual issues" do a crap job providing both elementary and secondary education. So let's send these mediocre students to 4 to 8 more years of mediocre instruction.

I'm really curious what the state and local governments know about math that qualifies them to "understand the issues" in Math. Does 2 x 2 equal 4 in Georgia but 5 in Maine or California? Does a chemical equation get written differently in South Dakota than North Dakota. Funny countries across the oceans in either direction outperform our students. Hmmm must be because they understand the local issues in education, right?

B.S.!

The scores in the other test subjects are worse.

Reading has a national average of 219 out of 500, 44%.

Science and writing both have an average of 153. But great news folks that only out of 300 not 500. WOW! 51% performance. Rhodes Scholarships For Everyone!

The numbers above are for 4th graders, 8 graders aren't better with more years in the system. Apparently when you don't learn the fundamental your advanced performance is equally deficient. Our education gurus apparently take pride in a national average of 37% proficiency.

I'd comment on the performance of the 12 graders but clicking there does nothing. No change from the 12 graders lack of performance. Perhaps someone doesn't want to document how unprepared our 12 graders are to move on.

BUT yeah, FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE. IT'S A RIGHT! Even if they can't perform.

We've got to keep those teachers and guidance counselors making those 6 figure incomes.


And WTF does these test results have to do with the statement about civics knowledge of natural born and naturalized citizens?

The naturalized citizens probably know it better because they take the test as adults after studying a pamphlet while the those born here have spent their formative years being taught that America is the most oppressive country in recorded history.

 

[BGIF]

Postscript on the National Report Card.

While the report is segregated by state, the highest Math score was for an unknown state to me, "DoDEA". I went to google to find that DoDEA stands for Department of Defense Educational Activity. It's a field activity of the Secretary of Defense for military kids schooling.

From Wiki:

The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) is responsible for planning, directing, coordinating, and managing prekindergarten through 12th grade educational programs on behalf of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). DoDEA is globally positioned, operating 163 accredited schools in 8 districts located in 11 foreign countries, 7 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico.[1]

DoDEA employs 15,000 employees who serve 71,000 children of active duty military and DoD civilian families. DoDEA is committed to ensuring that all school-aged children of military families are provided a world-class education that prepares them for postsecondary education and/or careers.​

Once again we must keep in mind that "states and local governments are better able to address their local issues" ... so why is the highest scoring school system on the Math Score NOT a state but a FEDERAL governmental agency. An agency that runs 163 ACCREDITED schools in 11 foreign countries, 7 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

How could that successfully run a school curriculum when none of the 17,000 federal employees teachers and administrators are a mayor, a councilperson, or a state legislator?

Their schools are in 20 different entities around the globe. A fair percentage of those students are moved frequently with their parents tour of duty every 18 to 36 months. They will see multiple schools in multiple lands during their student years while losing multiple friendships. They don't live in with the trauma of school shootings or inner city drivebys. They do live with the knowledge that their parents, dad, mom, or both can be deployed and sent on patrol tonight and not return alive.

Despite the disadvantages and without a state governor and legislature to promulgate
curricula tailored to local issues they endure and many prosper. I have a grand nephew and grand niece that were Air Force brats. Spent all their school years in the DoD school system. One's a public school teacher, the other works for a international company. Both are multilingual fluent in 3 languages and able to "get by" in a couple of others.

Could it be due to the discipline in a military environment? It can't be due to both parent being at home at night as many of them pull duty on rotating shifts, or might spend too much time in the O Club or NCO Club, or one or both parents might be deployed to a out of country.

Surely it can't be due to a school system run by a federal agency and not locals who better know the issues.

It is ironic that the highest score "state" is the federal government.