I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

I'd be more worried about the guys who kill 1,600 people and aren't emotionally traumatized... The fact he's ridiculed by his former pilot mates is disturbing, that they can so distance themselves from killing is scary... of course we have a nation full of people who claim to be pro-life on one hand, yet fully support the preemptive killing of people who haven't done anything to us yet, and indeed may have never participated in any direct or indirect attacks on US soil, let alone against US citizens abroad. It's one thing to target and kill people who were involved in 9/11 or other attacks against US facilities, but preemptively killing people we suspect may become involved is creating a far bigger problem than it solves. This is why we need people like Bernie Sanders rather than any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle, all of whom (besides perhaps Rand Paul, who's fairly heartless towards America's working poor as the rest of his party) will continue the Bush doctrine of shoot and kill first, ask questions later, and never have any regret...

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

>> ^criticalthud:

look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me. And under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?
or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.


You may need your eyes checked. Here are the two 'suspects' you are comparing:

1.Neighbor that looks suspicious, they maybe even wear a turban.
2.Man who's written multiple books and essays on how and why to wage Jihad against America on it's own streets. A man who we have phone records for his mentoring of a person that shot and killed multiple Americans on American soil.

Do those two look the same or remotely comparable to you? There's no question the precedent is troublesome, but you don't think your example is a touch.... extreme?

and look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me...cause he keeps mumbling weird shit and motioning in my direction. I don't know, but this dude don't like me. could be my music taste. anyway, luckily, under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in preemptively planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?

or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
The only expansion Obama really made was into Libya.
Not true. He expanded the war effort in Afghanistan. Continued the Bush Doctrine in Iraq. And of course Libya. And he hasn't ended any military occupations, nor did he close GITMO, etc. etc.


I understood his surge in Afghanistan was merely a redeployment of forces perviously deployed in Iraq, leaving a no net change in military commitment. Am I wrong or incorrect to take expanding military efforts to mean increasing troop deployments, and to say that as a whole, the only increase in deployment outside the existing ones Bush started is in Libya?

And my prior questions re: Libya are still ones I'm curious on, I hope they don't seem snide, I just meant to be direct.

>> ^bcglorf:

The only expansion Obama really made was into Libya.

Not true. He expanded the war effort in Afghanistan. Continued the Bush Doctrine in Iraq. And of course Libya. And he hasn't ended any military occupations, nor did he close GITMO, etc. etc.

>> ^enoch:

this all began under bush and one of my biggest hopes was that Obama would recind that abomination of extended presidential powers.
that whole "hope for change" deal.
instead the Obama admin has not only continued the bush doctrine but expanded it!

jesus wept.


It's the end of the two party system. We have one party now.

this all began under bush and one of my biggest hopes was that Obama would recind that abomination of extended presidential powers.
that whole "hope for change" deal.
instead the Obama admin has not only continued the bush doctrine but expanded it!


jesus wept.

>> ^Issykitty:

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. In this sense he is a complete bible belt redneck to me. THe end.


Hmmmm? Let me see... a president who continues to torture, bomb foreign countries, expand the wars, create new military aggressions, refuses to repeal the Patriot Act, condemns Brad Manning of wikileaks, continues the Bush Doctrine, and is a pro-corporatist? Or one who doesn't believe the "rigid separation" between state and church has a basis in the Constitution?

He's right as far as the Constitution is concerned. Still, let's not forget that RP also said, "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Does that sound like a "bible belt redneck"?

And for the record, I'm a bible belt redneck, thankyouverymuch. At least as my hometown is counted.

Corporations and 'market forces' are how we got here. I know that by admitting that, you'd have to tear down your entire belief system and start over from scratch, and that's a lot to ask of anyone. I've got no problems attempting to treat the numerous symptoms, but this kind of shit is going to continue as long as big business is in the drivers seat.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Who said anything about them being the "brainchild" of Obama? You're stuck in that fallacious bipartisan thinking. Just because I've got a beef with Obama doesn't mean I an absolving Bush of his atrocities. But he's not "in charge" anymore, so to insinuate that these porno-scanners are in place now because of Bush's Administration is a fallacious and disingenuous argument. Let's go over the finer points:

First, the TSA today is under the purview of the Obama Administration, so anything it does is the fault of that administration. Period. The chain of command works like this: TSA > Department of Homeland Security (DHS) > Janet Napolitano > Obama. When Obama is no longer the president, then the TSA will be the responsibility of the new Administration... and so on.

Second, more porno-scanners are being added under Obama.

Third, the "enhanced security procedures" are being added under Obama. This includes touching of groins and the added frequency of the porno-scanners.

Fourth, Obama even admits the buck stops with him.

Lastly, Obama ran on a platform of "change". That change was meant to "correct" the ills of the previous administration, including the Bush Doctrine, FISA, the Patriot Act, and domestically the DHS. It hasn't been corrected. It's gotten worse.

Who said anything about them being the "brainchild" of Obama? You're stuck in that fallacious bipartisan thinking. Just because I've got a beef with Obama doesn't mean I an absolving Bush of his atrocities. But he's not "in charge" anymore, so to insinuate that these porno-scanners are in place now because of Bush's Administration is a fallacious and disingenuous argument. Let's go over the finer points:

First, the TSA today is under the purview of the Obama Administration, so anything it does is the fault of that administration. Period. The chain of command works like this: TSA > Department of Homeland Security (DHS) > Janet Napolitano > Obama. When Obama is no longer the president, then the TSA will be the responsibility of the new Administration... and so on.

Second, more porno-scanners are being added under Obama.

Third, the "enhanced security procedures" are being added under Obama. This includes touching of groins and the added frequency of the porno-scanners.

Fourth, Obama even admits the buck stops with him.

Lastly, Obama ran on a platform of "change". That change was meant to "correct" the ills of the previous administration, including the Bush Doctrine, FISA, the Patriot Act, and domestically the DHS. It hasn't been corrected. It's gotten worse.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back.
First you would need to find a Democrat who believed your false premise about Obama following the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine would have demanded that Obama make a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran as soon as we became concerned that they may pose a threat to US interests in the foreseeable future.
Instead, Obama is engaging in multilateral diplomatic sanctions, which you are falsely equating with war.
All that said, I'm sure you could find such uninformed liberals who're vowing to oppose Obama in 2012 all over the place, I bet you could even find a few here. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Bush doctrine... wait, did not Bush, and McCain, and republicans raise the war horn for a "threatening" Iran? So, did I miss something, or did Bush not make a preemptive strike when he was President?

Sure, the Bush Doctrine says to attack, but not that we must attack--as he proved.

Second, I am sure most Afghans do not really care what you call it Net, however, when the day is finished and the sand and rock blasted, and the drones done with their assualts and what-not, and the dead American soliders, well, it boils down to a war. Maybe not Obama's war, maybe not his choice of escaltion for whatever purpose (Multilateral or not,) maybe not his harem in the basement of the White House (I would have one!,) but in the hot sun, philosophy blows-cock.

So whatever reason, however handled, what not, does not change death to life, poverty to both nations to richness, or ideals in both parties. You make excuses, and like I said, maybe Obama cannot stop the chain of events, only help, but it still happens.

>> ^blankfist:

If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back.

First you would need to find a Democrat who believed your false premise about Obama following the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine would have demanded that Obama make a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran as soon as we became concerned that they may pose a threat to US interests in the foreseeable future.

Instead, Obama is engaging in multilateral diplomatic sanctions, which you are falsely equating with war.

All that said, I'm sure you could find such uninformed liberals who're vowing to oppose Obama in 2012 all over the place, I bet you could even find a few here.

@Throbbin, the war is expanding under Obama, and he's committing a significant number of troops to Afghanistan. He's also threatening sanctions to be placed on Iran, which is effectively an act of war.

If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back. But you know, as well as I do, when they self-proclaim the Democratic Party as the "party of peace" they're creating a disingenuous slogan they use only when the Republicans are in office.

The Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical in foreign policy. They're both the party of war.