Phank on "truly terrible political policy"

[seasanctuary]

It does make you wonder why it's necessary to have a "no disagreement permitted" forum, when nobody disagrees anyway. If I wanted to be stroked, I'm sure I could find a "discussion" forum where only people who agree with me are permitted to contribute or participate. Kinda sad that everyone else here is seeking protection from the majority out there in the cold cruel world, all thankful that if they can outlaw or drive off disagreement, they need never think at all, and can recite memorized slogans to the carefully-self-selected cheering crowd.

As you may have noticed, when people sharply disagree, discussions don't often advance beyond the major points of disagreement. Or they devolve back to that. Having a forum with restrictions does nothing to prevent discussions in other forums without those restrictions. You can even make threads in an unrestricted forum about a thread in a restricted forum.

[OingoBoingo]

Might be worth a look, but I'm hoping for a discussion. I notice when I tried to raise the issue of birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies, I got responses like this instead:
And there we are. Who CARES about unwanted pregnancy, we want to discuss "murdering unborn children", and seeking a sensible policy is labeled "vitriolic rhetoric".

Meanwhile, Gallup produces some interesting breakdowns:

Americans' preferences for the "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" terms vary greatly by political party and ideology, but also by demographic characteristics. Americans with no religious affiliation and self-described liberals are the most likely to call themselves "pro-choice," with roughly eight in 10 choosing this label. Postgraduates and high-income earners are nearly as oriented to the pro-choice position as are Democrats, followed by Easterners, suburbanites, and young adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, Protestants, low-income Americans, adults with no college education, and Southerners join Republicans and conservatives as the least "pro-choice."

So it would seem that postgraduates and high income earners are the most "pro-murder", while low-income people without college educations are the most "anti-murder". No wonder informed and educated discussion is nowhere to be found. Why think when you can use slogans?

I don't know if anyone's caught this yet, but assuming this citation is accurate (and polls and stats can be made to say anything), isn't it odd to anyone else that the wealthy and intellectual elite are more pro-abortion than those that (according to Phank) abortion is really aimed at "helping"? This reads like wealthy, liberal, intellectuals with no religious affiliation have no problem seeing the numbers of the poor and disadvantaged thinned by way of abortion. Is this the image you want people to have Phank? If not, I don't think relying on surveys that say "well educated, rich people are for abortion" is the way to go.