Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Why do you think Obama is doing a great job as president?
Surely that line is trickier to draw for a president over a congressman/governor/etc though? He represents the people who voted him into office, but also everyone else in the country. To say he has an overwhelming obligation just to those who supported him is a lot like Mitt Romney saying he owes nothing to 47% of the population because they don't believe in the America he does. Or whatever BS he spouted. And if it was a given that a president would fall in line with the party majority upon being elected, how can a candidate justify running on anything else in the actual election?
I agree. That's why he came out in stronger support of the lgbt community with his second inaugural address compared with his first.
Well, of course, it is a trickier line to draw for a President. I also did not say he has an overwhelming obligation just to represent those who supported him. I said he has an obligation to evolve his policy (I honestly don't care what a president personally believes as long as they don't govern based on personal viewpoint alone. That's why politics and religion irk me. Believe what you want, but don't run the country based on God's will or sumshit.) to fit with the direction the country is moving in. It may be difficult to discern at times, but he was spot on regarding marriage equality. A good leader should avoid thinking that viewpoints and policy are stagnant.
I'm not sure I actually understand you last question. I don't think it is a given that a President always falls in line completely with his party. Is it? If Obama always listened to his base, he may have to discontinue the use of drones.
He must govern for all of us, but it is important that he keeps abreast of the tenor of his party so that he can do the job we elected him to do. No one elected him to try and deny gay people the right of marriage. That would have been the message if Romney had won - and then I would expect our government to take steps to outlaw it based on the voting public's majority opinion.
I'm not actually even sure what we are disagreeing about. You think that Obama should have impeded any plans to allow marriage equality if he personally was against it, even though Democrats, and Americans in general, support it?
Er. I thought we were just having a philosophical discussion about the relative political obligations of elected officials. Or something. Difficult to say, as I just woke up from a nap. I'm speculating in general terms, not on this specific issue.
All I'm asking is where you draw the line on supporting your party's majority view as an obligation to the party beliefs versus continuing to hold a minority line because that's what you truly believe, and you stated such when you were elected. Obama was elected in 2008 in a party that largely supported same-sex marriage while clearly articulating that he himself did not support it.
You said Even if President Obama personally was against marriage equality, the onus was on him to represent the people who voted him into office. I'm just countering that idea in general with the idea that, rather, the people are responsible for finding a leader with the best views to support their own- and in 2008, the democratic party decided it could live with a president who said he did not support marriage equality. If a Republican candidate ran and was elected on a platform that he had no interest in touching Roe v Wade, I would not expect him to fall to the party line just because he won; it's worth bearing in mind that a huge block of independent, party-unaffiliated voters also put presidents into office.
I am not discounting the idea that supporting same-sex marriage is what Obama truly believes now by any means, and I'm certainly happy that he spoke up about it. Better late than never. I'm just speculating on your comment about motivations not mattering because you'd expect him to represent his party's views. That's all. You said you'd be disappointed with him for not falling in line with the stance of the party and, increasingly, the US- I, on the other hand, would be disappointed in him if he were disingenuously changing his stance on a civil rights issue for political gain. That doesn't have to mean I wasn't disappointed in his original stance as well.
Well I really think you are discounting the effect that abortion has on a woman. Some women who have abortions suffer for the rest of their lives because of it. Guess it could go both ways.
"And that isn't even going into the number of women who chose abortion not just because they didn't want a child, but because they didn't want to be pregnant. Adoption doesn't solve the "I don't want to be pregnant" problem."
I have never heard a more sickening statement in all my life? Oh, I had an abortion because I didn't want to be pregnant. How ridiculous does that sound? You don't want to be pregnant, yet you took part in the very thing that make you pregnant. What a completely selfish pile of crap.
OK, off the restroom I am sick to my stomach now.
Selfish pile of crap, maybe, but the world operates in reality, not on the set of Juno.
Ummm okay. "I don't want to be pregnant because my job will fire me if they find out I'm pregnant" and "I don't want to be pregnant because I don't have health insurance and can't afford the $20,000 bill for having a baby" and "I don't want to be pregnant with my rapist's baby" make me sick to my stomach too, but probably not for the same reasons that it does you.
Don't know....never saw the movie Juno.
Well the whole rapist baby thing is a little over the top. Most people I know who are pro-life will make exceptions when the life of the mother and/or rape is involved. But OK.
Last time I checked, being fired for being pregnant was against the law. and $20K hospital bill? That doesn't fly with me either, if you truly cannot afford it you will more than likely have a medical card (my sister had one for all of her 4 kids...never paid a dime)
So it's okay to murder a baby if the father is a rapist? Isn't that horribly selfish?
Being fired for being pregnant is not always against the law and LOL if you think companies always follow the law.
Do you have $20,000 sitting around right now? Do you really think that everyone can afford to shell out $20,000 (plus the costs of prenatal care), even people who aren't poor? The eligibility rules for Medicaid are very low. Here's Georgia, for example:
http://dch.georgia.gov/eligibility-criteria-chart
A married couple or household of two cannot make more than $30,264 per year to be eligible for Medicaid.
I think you are incredibly naive if you think that nobody ever has to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give birth.
Technically, yes allowing an abortion in the case of rape/incest is taking the baby's life. It isn't my first choice but neither is capital punishment. I suppose lesser of two evils?
I am not naive, I know employers don't always follow the law and I am certain there are lots of women who receive a bill for the labor and delivery. I just don't believe it is as prevalent as you state. According to the National Abortion Federation the majority of women who seek out abortions (57%) are low income. And the vast majority (83%) are unmarried.
This is pretty silly. Women who do not qualify for FMLA can absolutely be fired if they take time off to recover after giving birth. Women without paid leave lose income/can be fired for going to doctor's appointments. Women who need to find a job to support themselves will be a lot less likely to do so while pregnant.
Sure, if you're poor enough you may get a medical card. But if you're not at poverty level, does that mean that you automatically have thousands of dollars laying around? I don't think so. And even people with insurance often pay large medical bills after giving birth.
There are a ton of reasons that not wanting to be pregnant is a legitimate problem. History of complications related to pregnancy is one of them. The fact that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for women (yes, our maternal mortality rate is rather high) is one of them. The fact that there are many medical complications that women live with for the rest of their lives after pregnancy is one of them. Forget the fact that financial security, the ability to feed your other children, and the ability to remain employed are issues. Pregnancy is a big deal when it comes to health.
And LOL at people just not having sex to prevent pregnancy. Come on. Sex is a natural compulsion, a biologically driven need, an expression of love, and an important part of a relationship. This is why access to birth control is so important.
I didn't say anything about how prevalent it is or isn't. I said that there are many reasons to not want to be pregnant anymore.
Well we could go round and round about abortion and I certainly did not intend this to turn into the Great Abortion Debate of 2013.
My whole point, and my only point, adoption is rarely discussed when it comes to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. I believe it is a viable option and should be discussed. It worked well for my parents, they were blessed with 4 children who maybe didn't grow under their heart, but within it.
What about a married couple that doesn't want or doesn't feel capable of raising children? Should they abstain from sex forever just so they don't accidentally get pregnant? Birth control, vasectomies, etc, are never 100% effective.
Anecdote time: I had a neighbor who was bi-polar. She had a son from a previous relationship that she ended up signing away rights to (to his father) because even on medication she did not feel a capable parent to the little boy. She's currently married again and getting pregnant, in her words, would be dangerous for her. The meds she's on could cause birth defects so if she carried the baby to term (for adoption) she would have to go off her meds which would be a real problem for her and there's the potential she would try something dangerous that would hurt her and/or the baby she's carrying. I've been witness to some of what she has done when not on her meds and I don't doubt that she could really hurt herself or the baby. Some people can cope well, but if a woman knows that she may not be capable of safely carrying a baby to term being off of her medication that she needs to function in her daily life, shouldn't we trust her?
I don't know how you can say it's "rarely discussed." It's pretty much constantly discussed when it comes to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies (as well as by people who have been having trouble conceiving).
Are there really people out there who aren't aware of adoption? Are there pregnant women who have no idea that they could place their babies for adoption?
Absolutely! Look, I am not saying "don't want a baby, don't have sex". All I am saying is that in today's society be responsible about it. Although it is not 100% effective, modern birth control is very effective. But even on birth control, getting pregnant is still a possibility.
I don't like the idea of abortion as a form of birth control (and although not the case in every situation...it does happen).
I just love how you take things to the extreme. There are probably very few people who have never heard of adoption. But when there is a debate on pro-choice vs. pro-life, I rarely hear the topic of adoption coming into play.
Well, that's because it's a red herring in the abortion debate, which is about whether women should have the legal right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy and whether the government can prohibit a safe medical procedure that a woman and her doctor have decided together to have performed. Adoption doesn't really figure into that.
*** I am really, really dumb when it comes to trimming quote trees. I just won't take the time to figure out how to do it properly, apparently!
So, this is to Lexi:
Ahhh. Okay, I see where your at. I still disagree. I don't necessarily think that "to thine own self be true," applies to a politician (in their political capacity). I don't think governing means blindly following your own viewpoints, while ignoring what a nation wants because you don't agree with it.
I can't say where the line needs to be drawn - I don't really think there is a line. It's blurry. I think when it's as obvious as marriage equality, our leaders to do need to represent the majority viewpoint - not their own viewpoint.
So yeah, if Obama was against gay marriage I would NOT be disappointed in him if he shoved his own personal opinion to the back of his mind and focused on what the people wanted. I do find it interesting that you would have been!
I think the difference between our opinions is that I don't necessarily find it disingenuous to follow the will of the people, over a personal opinion. I think it's smart and good leadership. I don't particularly care about the personal opinion or motivation of a politician, as long as they are honest about how they will sway politically.