Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

Mississippi pregnancy rates

Mississippi vs New Hampshire

Sex Education Works

Abstinance based education increases hiv transmisson

Why does the religious right want to turn women into diseased baby producing autonomons?

Posted too soon, didn't get a chance to edit!

Due to our foreign policies with the US, having a Republican POTUS and a Liberal PM could land Aussie's in real hot water.

Novack and Math have said everything I would have, so no need to repeat them. I'll keep this short, and just my opinion as all the stats and history of religions/racism etc has already been well covered.

When I was a little girl, I used to fantasise about moving to America. Then I took up International Politics and International Relations in high school

Now, IMO America is no better than the countries they condemn. It certainly is no longer 'land of the free.'

When I say America, I mean their politicians who criticise the Middle East for the way they treat women, homosexuals etc. It seems they're becoming the very sort of government they despise so deeply.

It worries me very much that my country -Australia- seems to be turning into 'Mini America.' Since it's pretty much a done deal the Liberal's will win our next election (I am Labor) I am following this election very closely. A Republican POTUS and a Liberal PM could land Aussie's in real hot water.

I think that has to be one of the oddest posts I've read on Mumsnet.

You are right you cannot make other people comply with your view of morality. Live your life the way you think right, but don't presume to think that other people will subscribe to your views however much you choose to talk about avoiding sex.

Well only Saudi Arabia and the VATICAN don't allow woman to vote and Iran and Afghanistan are democracies.

But going by your rantings you would prefer a theocracy. you're demonstrating exactly why a religious zealot like Romney should never be President as with Ahmadinajad wanting a nuclear weapon being bad enough the last thing the world needs is a cult member of the USA with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal.

Abstinance only leads to more abortions. Plane simple fact from the WHO

I did not suggest any particular person would tell me to move to another country, only that people have told me that before just for disagreeing with abortion or promiscuity or explicit sex education. It's usually one of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan. Like I'd live in an anti-woman third world hellhole dictatorship rather than be a minority voice in a democracy. It's one of the lines that most pisses me off.

Anti-choice? That is abortion lobbyist language. Pro-life. In return I won't call you pro-death. Civility, you said...

I feel that abstinence is not working out properly because of the moral failings of the people... but how to improve morals is a very complex thing and one government cannot control, they can't "make" people moral. Abstinence has been difficult throughout history; we know most males weren't virgins at marriage even in the Victorian era, just not speaking about sex in public (so that was more a misogynist system than a truly moral system as it shamed women.) Now that men and women are closer to equality and one does not have to do all the parenting could we finally enter a period of abstinence by both sexes until marriage, and a renewed emphasis on living life with higher goals than mere animal rutting? Women now have the power to make demands of their partners and they should begin to demand sexually pure men. That would change the game toward family values. Most importantly, all the Christians and Muslims of the world start living out abstinence/sex within marriage only. Instead of moaning about "how times have changed" or "it's not like that anymore", let's go out and pro-actively make it "like that": in the US over 70% of the population is still Christian and yet 95% are sexually experienced at marriage. I can get atheists rejecting the marriage-based standard. Those of us with faith need to get together and we can completely transform society just by our rededication to moral truth- actually supporting the sanctity of marriage, purity and pro-life values instead of the suburban 1950s or 1870s Victoriana fantasy which was really full of backstreet abortions, brothels, "easy" girls and affairs.

Is this reasonable?

I am a fiscal conservative, and one that knows that inflicting some tough love on the City would save us a lot more money. Corporate welfare costs us far more money in the US.

By the way, the US Republican party is not pro-family. They resist any time off for maternity leave (paid or otherwise), any national minimum for holiday entitlement, any flexi working restrictions on businesses. In all the ways that matter, they want to keep families apart as much as possible.

I would not suggest you move to another country! That's the point of living in a democracy, you don't have to agree with the mainstream.

No-one pushes for anti abortion laws because the other 75-80% are pro choice. I know I'm in the minority. I was saying it's not such a SMALL minority.

"inflict on the poor"- many think that fiscal conservatism benefits the poor in the long run even if it inflicts temporary suffering, so being compassionate does not require a high and progressive tax rate. You might not agree. I am centrist on economics anyway.

It's my social views and particularly my abortion statements which conflict with the UK mainstream. And I'm proud of that. I'm not going to go with the majority. The sexual "revolution" was wrong and abortion is wrong, and that is all I will say. But I accept that this being a democracy it is not likely that major steps will be taken to promote a pro-abstinence and/or pro-life agenda because there will be no electoral constituency for doing so. So I just live my life the old-fashioned way, which I see as the only morally right way no matter how unpopular it is in a given society, and all the permissives can get on with being the majority.

Pro-life, pro-family, pro-enterprise, but not anti-poor or anti-minority, and not pro-British mainstream and don't want to be. (Nor do I want to hear idiot comments telling me to "move to Afghanistan" or similar. I've had that fucking crazy shit before just because I believe in sexual morality and pro-life, that doesn't count as a reason to go into exile in a third world country. Britain is tolerant enough not to force me out for my traditionalist beliefs.)

I just might consider Ireland though. Not paying for the killing of unborn babies with tax pounds and a LOT more people still believing in God and the primacy of the family is a big improvement for a trip across a few miles of sea.

Extro Still not answering any questions yet.

Since you are anti-choice how do you feel about the figures from the WHO that clearly show that terminations of a pregnancy are far higher in abstinence only sex education states compared to comprehensive sex ed states.

Piglet John - I'm an actual American voter. If the election were run today in the US, Obama would probably win. And that's pretty poor for the Republicans, who should be flying high on the VP announcement and the RNC.

Anything can happen before November, so who knows? McCain was a much stronger candidate than Romney, but then Obama was 'vapourware', and now he has a record of failing to fish the economy out of the toilet. Still, I doubt Romney will succeed where McCain failed.

Math- "extreme liberal" does not apply to you. You are moderate to left leaning from what you write on this thread, by US or Irish standards, and just centrist by UK standards.

I was using "extreme liberal" to describe People for the American Way given their continuous talk of "reproductive freedom", opposition to parents' rights laws, calling SCOTUS justices reactionaries, and the vitriol with which they cover the Right and the sort of blogs and articles they link to.

My talk of monks and nuns was in contrast to the openly anti-Christian Amanda Marcotte (that's not anti-Christian Right, but anti ALL religion, in a flippant and hateful tone) suggesting that teachers in high schools should be able to correct misinterpretations of human relationships, particularly those about what turns females on, encountered in porn. She mentioned "an experienced adult". I was pointing out that an adult without sexual experience would be just as good at explaining the sort of reproductive facts schools should confine themselves to teaching, and perhaps even do better at delivering an abstinence-focused, morally respectable message. I went to a independent non-denominational, (moderate- no evolution denial or hellfire talk) Christian school in England where the sex education was delivered by a Catholic nun. It was appreciated.

What Marcotte the misotheist has in mind is teachers who'll be prepared to listen to pupils confide their formative sexual experience and not disclose it to parents or anyone else. Which is almost as extreme as you can get. None but the most foolhardy or reckless pupil would start trying to share personal details of their sexual development with a celibate nun or monk, at least. They would be quickly cut off and a phone call made to the parents.

I get your points on school nurses. I think you've converted me on that.

Extro - I've read your posts, and I see that you're trying to 'redress the balance'. But what balance? If the US election were run in the UK, Obama would win by a majority unseen in a US or UK election, ever. And it's because, as ever so many have pointed out, the US Republican party is long old way from mainstream (nevermind liberal) UK opinion.

The love the UK electorate have for an NHS free at the point of service is well documented and quantified.

The Tories have never pushed for changes to abortion law that even begin to echo Republican platforms in the US.

The sort of economic austerity that Cameron seeks to inflict on the poor would still make him a leftie in the US.

You seem to be suggesting that your views are mainstream in the UK, just not on leftie old Mumsnet. That's just patently untrue. You are more than entitled to your views, but they are out of whack with the bulk of British voters.

By all means, seek to change that if you like, this is a democracy and all opinions should be heard. It's just that thus far, your opinions are not that popular here.

Extro---

'mathanxiety: refuting your denials that A=A and therefore liberal lobby groups are indeed liberal; '

I never said the groups you recited were 'liberal' -- and neither did you. What you said was that they were 'anti-conservative'. From what you posted it seems what you mean by 'anti-conservative' is holding a view that some conservatives disagree with. (A case of projection in some ways but that is neither here nor there).

I don't know what you mean by secretive health clinics in schools. In a society where not all students' families have health insurance and many fall between family not being able to afford it and qualifying for public health coverage, having a nurse in school makes a lot of sense.

The DCs had a nurse's office in their high school. If you were feeling ill you had to go to the nurse's office before being released home. The nurse's office supported students who were pregnant and those who had recently delivered -- students could go there to pump breastmilk and store it in the fridge. Students kept inhalers and antibiotics there. The nurse's office was often the first port of call for students who were depressed and the staff there were skilled at flagging those with issues ranging from experiencing bullying to needing inpatient psych treatment. The nurse's office provided referrals for family support when families needed it if their students' problems were hard to deal with. As a parent I would be very happy to see my student approach the nurse's office instead of letting a problem fester.

The DCs did 'Health' class as a graduation requirement. (Interestingly, if you didn't want to waste a semester doing Health in class you could do it by correspondence, and the chosen provider of the correspondence course was Brigham Young University..). In their US Catholic elementary school they did 'Family Life'. I trust my DCs to make good decisions. I have a good enough relationship with them (I think) that they would feel able to come to me if they had a problem. I am glad they have at least someone to talk with if they feel they can't come to me.

'As if all the monks and nuns who have done school sex ed in Catholic establishments are not capable of delivering a morally sensitive and respectable message on human reproduction.'
You are taking the piss here, surely?
I am a Catholic from a country that has been rocked by a massive and seemingly unending scandal involving extreme sexual dysfunction and abuse of power by members of the clergy both male and female since the state of which I am a citizen was founded. Members of the clergy and religious who tried to deliver any sort of message on sex and sexuality there would be met with raised eyebrows at the least and other reactions from less polite elements.
I go to mass every Sunday and on holy days and my DCs do too. Fwiw, I consider myself pro life, but I tend to express that through practical support for women's refuges and the like and absolutely not by voting for 'pro life' candidates whom I see as a pack of charlatans -- you really can't say you are pro life and support a party that does not support the concept of minimum wage and access to free health care for all, and is all for the death penalty and deportation of immigrants even if it means splitting up of families and leaving children without fathers or mothers.

Whether abortion is legal or illegal it will happen as long as women are unable to support babies financially, are forced to remain in relationships however tenuous where there is an imbalance of power and having a baby with a man means they are tied to that man until the baby turns 18 (thank you, fathers' rights activists), and where women are shamed for expressing their sexuality. Places like Ireland used to be (still is in some respects) and the US, for instance.

'Extreme liberal, extreme liberal, extreme fucking liberal. Be honest and accept that is what you are. '
I like the environment. I like the idea that children should be protected and I think there is plenty they need protection from, though those things are not necessarily the same things I think you might feel are a threat. I don't like the idea that gang members and innocent bystanders can be mowed down in American cities on warm summer nights just because the AK 47 is technically a gun. I like the idea that in a free society all sorts of views can be aired on all sorts of issues and a sensible middle ground can be reached. I don't agree with the opinions of many parties to the debates but people have an absolute right to have them and to expect better in return than stupid labels of 'fucking liberal' by way of reply. I see 150 years since the Civil War of attempts to create and then maintain a civil society 'with liberty and justice for all' a painful process at times at risk of going down the drain because of the shrill and extremist tone that people like you bring to the table. I am a pro life liberal Catholic who values civil debate. Put that in your pipe and for the love of all that is good and holy relax

IdPreferNot -- I agree with your comments upthread on Romney not running on his record and being seen as a flip flopper and also with your take on Sarah Palin costing McCain the election.

But you are not here redressing any balance.

You spout off your forced birther views then when asked if you agree with the laws that include a forced vaginal probe for ultrasound, blow the image up to A4 size to emotionally blackmail a raped woman into then having a child she has no means to support, and the states will not support either, you refuse to answer and clam up.

So don't bring up Hitler then, just call them liars. And again, 1951? If we're talking 1951 I will say the Democrats are racists and GOP are civil rights people, because that was true then... not so any more. You and math are both projecting things which ended decades ago onto the GOP, Romney and his 2012 campaign.

HmmThinking: there are plenty of people who think that a private system could do better than the NHS, just look on the Telegraph forums or other papers whenever something negative about the NHS is reported: certainly a minority but 10% (5 million voters) would not be asking too much.

It's right in the mainstream to want more restrictions on abortion (20-week limit or even lower for abortions without exceptional circumstances; independent counselling; parental notification/consent for under 16s are all popular) and 15-25% depending on poll are actual prolifers like me who want abortion to be made illegal.That is millions of people. It is popular to suggest cutting benefits and government spending, even if driven by exaggerations of what benefits people actually get and how much trouble we're in. Polls show majority in favour of death penalty for some murders, between a third and a half supporting leaving the EU, "tough on crime" sentencing increases get so much popular support even Labour implements them, New Labour had to move right to avoid becoming completely obsolete because people didn't want confiscatory levels of tax on the wealthy or hikes on the middle class. These are all right-wing ideas. This site does not even come close to reflecting the average British citizen from any official ComRes/ YouGov/ British Social Attitudes Survey or other major poll. So it will not represent the average Brits' views on American politics either.

That's why I'm in here to redress the balance. It is a shame but not a surprise no-one's coming to my defence in a rational way.

"the VP is only one bullet away from the Oval office"

Sarah Palin (nutjob right) cost John McCain (Republican centre) the election.

Romney has gone for the same tactic - appeal to the hard right with your running mate. He will meet the same fate as McCain.

Oh the strawman argument extrospektiv.

No one said anything about comparing the holocaust to the republicans.

I said they are using the same philosphy known as the big lie philosophy used in mein kampf and then also used in 1951 in the film of the same name which was released by the US Army to turn the US folks against communism to turn their backs on their ally USSR.

Again you didn't answer any question except your own strawman nonsense.

have we got some actual American voters who'd like to chip in?

Novackngood: Nazi reference out of order! Wow, the ignorance of comparing the slaughter of millions in the greatest war and one of the greatest genocides humanity has ever seen to... conservative politics.

Big Lies are told by people on both sides of politics. In America, in this country, and probably everywhere else in the world. It's part of the programme. Not saying it's right, but it's not just rightwing.

For what happens when partisan politics hits education hard see the US "anti-phonics" movement where liberals tried to enforce Look and Say/ Whole Word over phonics, despite studies showing either that both were equal or that phonics was superior - just because phonics was the traditional method and the one preferred by right-wing groups who added "back to basics" education to their roster along with fighting values clarification, exercises teaching children there was no right and wrong or absolute truth and they should think for themselves (=postmodernism and contrary to faith teachings) and stopping secretive school based health clinics which they saw as counter-parent.

mathanxiety: refuting your denials that A=A and therefore liberal lobby groups are indeed liberal;
School-based clinics which, by the way, the Children's Defense Fund under Hillary Clinton supported- thus earning them the "liberal" tag along with their endorsing of 99.9% Dems over their votes for more government spending on health and education, their DREAM Act support which is obvious given as it grew out of the civil-rights movement, fervent belief in gun control and other issues. The thing I really dislike about CDF, despite the excellent work they have done on many issues, is that they use the word "protect" in their Republican-trashing: putting out lists of Democrats with 80-100% scorecards and Republicans at or barely above zero, accompanied by "How well does your senator/representative protect children...?" which has horrific implications for those who are just ideologically opposed to higher government spending or see better use of money than the particular votes, don't want immigration amnesty and believe in gun rights.

Sierra Club advocates environmentalist policies which override Republican policy on numerous issues while dovetailing with Democratic ones. I have not studied this issue closely enough to decide where I stand on it.

Denying PP, Center for Repro. Rights or NARAL are liberal is like denying the earth is round. That abortion/BC is currently legal makes no odds in this. The fact is, their fight to keep it legal is a liberal political cause, in the same way fighting to keep guns legal is a conservative one. "I'm just trying to keep the law the way it is" does not exempt you from an ideological label.

People for the American Way run an anti-conservative specialist site called "Right Wing Watch" with links to the likes of Talk LEFT, Open LEFT, Daily Kos, Religion Dispatches, Talkingpointsmemo, ThinkProgress and just hardcore leftism in general. I am not talking middle of the road liberal here. The stuff on these websites is simply as far as you can go without being an outright socialist.

They call judges who disagree with Roe v Wade and an expansive "privacy" ideology which is nowhere in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and strict constructionists "REACTIONARIES". They are already abortion-baiting over SCOTUS appointments should Romney win and have set up another site to do this- romneycourt.com They oppose parental rights legislation full-throttle. Extreme liberal, extreme liberal, extreme fucking liberal. Be honest and accept that is what you are. As I said, I don't find it an insult. Just a political view I don't sympathise with and which I wish no-one would take to these extremes, in the same way I don't like the right-wing extremes of racism, heavy nationalism, anti-woman views and a completely free market/Austrian school "sink or swim on your own, we don't care" system.

A dishonourable mention to one of PFAW's buddies, Pandagon: this site now features the sickening Amanda Marcotte known for absolute hatred of pro-lifers and the religious of any type, her hard-core defenses of the sexual revolution, open promotion of European extreme-liberal sex ed and even saying that high schoolers should have an "experienced" adult to explain to porn-watching boys how to please their girlfriends. As if all the monks and nuns who have done school sex ed in Catholic establishments are not capable of delivering a morally sensitive and respectable message on human reproduction. If you want to talk about your own adolescent sexual shenanigans in explicit detail, find a doctor or someone else appropriate for that. Your "sophisticated & approachable" 53 year old principal with her 36 years' experience starting in the post-Roe hookup generation is there to run that school, NOT to listen to your sexual confidences. Better still, wait for marriage.

The NEA I was referring to is the National EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, and everyone knows that a teachers' union is not the natural home of conservatism. There are plenty of conservatives in the teaching profession- a survey I saw in a large number of public schools across the 50 states said that 40% were Dem, 30% GOP and 30% independent or minor party. At the top of the NEA however, is the very same narrow-minded elite that run most of the academy, and the teacher training colleges of Europe. NEA's official position statements on an enormous series of issues social, fiscal and in-between are basically the Dem platform or to the left of even that. They are super high rolling Democratic donors.

He's had some trips there