Foch

(No Message)

.

quote:

---

I'd also be curious as to whether all of the psych meds have an effect too.

---

You don't see one (SSRIs) as being the product or result of the other (contraceptives)?

quote:

---

Do you consider miscarriages abortions?

---

If the "miscarriage" took place due to a positive action by another individual that was aimed at ending the pregnancy before natural birth then it isn't a miscarriage.

You need to consider intent of the action and its relation to an outcome.

quote:

---

I'm open to all sorts of ideas on the subject, but what I've mostly observed anecdotally is people getting married at 33-37 or so and then trying to have their first kid at 35+.

---

Our societal bias for "kids...but on my terms" is surely a part of this. Still, we have completely rejected the idea that we should live in harmony with our genetics and bodies instead of going out of our way to medicate ourselves away from what we are "ordered" to do (specifically talking about how criticism of birth control pills is anathema and it is a medication which chiefly serves to counter a natural and necessary process).

quote:

---

Some have pointed to a correlation with the use of seed oil and some pesticides causing infertility.

---

Add also the following:

-long term affects of synthetic hormones which are not tailored/compounded to account for women's genetics (see birth control)

-women waiting until after natural windows of peak fertility to begin attempting conception (often paired with long term contraceptive hormone use)

-poor education concerning women's hormonal cycles because modern medicine has taken a "master the cycle" approach instead of "understand the cycle"...lack of understanding around ovulation timing and at home testing methods for it is thankfully dissipating in recent years due to a growing rejection of oral contraceptives (they are not healthy)

-aging populations of men who themselves may not be in peak fertility windows (we are still way behind on understanding conditions for peak semen quality)

-women fully engaged in workforce = stress, which =/= optimized fertility environment

-other environmentals (increased sedentary lifestyles/workplaces, decreased exercise/exposure to sun, unknown role of microplastics as endocrine disruptors, impact of porn and other testosterone inhibitors which affect the male half of the equation)

quote:

---

Trump's current party is closer to the Libertarians than GOP of yesterday.

---

Which yesterday? How far back? It seems more closely related to pre-postwar domestic and foreign politics.

I think people are too willing to slap the "libertarian" sticker on traditional conservatism and localism.

Read up on the Spanish Libertarian Movement in the early 20th century. After anyone does it would be wise to run from the title "libertarian" and the traces of anarchism.

quote:

---

Oh so your argument is based off completely loose/terrible associations you're using to claim this is actually less government. Got it.

---

You claim this to be "more government" without differentiating which gov actions are more corrosive to society than others.

I see limiting usury as being preferred because the net effect of increasing the debtor caste is the growth of social welfare, decreased local economic activity, and a desensitization of large swaths of society to being permanently in debt.

quote:

---

Big daddy government gotta save people from their poor decisions

---

Or big daddy gov is going to bail people out from their bad decisions via social welfare programs anyway.

Those programs are financed by current taxpayers (and future generations) who likely aren't fueling credit card company bottom lines via runaway interest.

You call it a "nanny state" activity, but don't account for how corrosive the effects of a debt caste are on society and local/community economies.

quote:

---

Now you have posters not only supporting these regulations, but fricking capping interest rates on credit cards. And they pretend like this is the common, normal view of "conservatives" or "the right" while pretending to align the majority of their political beliefs solely along the "anti-Left" spectrum.

---

What exactly are you trying to "conserve" as the heart of a conservative viewpoint? From reading your arguements, the economy and freest exchange of goods is what you prioritize while others in this thread who point out the net effect of sports gambling and usurious lending appear to be interested in a conservative view that applies to family and soul.

You haven't contended with any if the arguements that point out the privatized gains of usury and socialized effects of credit card or gambling driven debt on society.

You also haven't written anything to address the massive undercutting of localism that occurs when ever greater portions of family budgets are spent sending funding out of communities and into the coffers of large financial institutions. Sure, chase and BoA can open a local branch in your community. Does that really offset the healthy spending that communities could benefit from if capital remained closer to home and bought homes, food, entertainment, and consumer goods?

You are right that the "brand" of conservative is changing and it is changing for the good. The decades of "trust" in the market as a purveyor of the common good are at their end. The dismantling of domestic manufacturing in the name of market efficiency (so so good right?) and the corresponding impact on family in America is bringing about a reversion towards a conservatism that was inwardly focused and driven by a bias to set conditions for localism and the flourishing of the family.

If you don't believe that conservatism should be interested in fostering familial health than please fully embrace anarchism and its other ills: unfettered access to vice (drugs, pornography, exploitation of some for the pleasure or profit of others), might making right, and man as a selfish individual "island".

quote:

---

Global warming cannot be changed through heavy spending and regulation

---

You don't need to run to fossil fuels as the central arguement when there are so many other public health issues which do impact the health of our people and budget.

Examples:
-plastics in the food supply/water (why is it acceptable to just take it for granted that microplastics spike estrogen and invade the testicles of toddlers because of cheap packaging and poor municipal filtration)

-chemical runoff due to pharmaceuticals (why accept that birth control pills are inherently safe and good when we know they taint the water supply and environment...what about SSRIs?)

-preservatives and seed oils (should we really be subsidizing entire parts of the ag economy to provide cheap but unhealthy components of our diet? Does our rise in chronic disease have anything to do with our diet changes that have resulted from sham science like the USDA food pyramid? Would gov money be better spent on incentives that don't both cause our ailments and then address our symptoms in the Medicare/medicaid population?)

-should we be ok with large portions of "green tech" that are inherently "dirty" (see open air artisnal mining for battery elements in africa)?

-why the revolving door of regulator/industry in areas such as food and medicine? Do we really need to have the gov subsidize (and by default mandate at the school/workforce level) vaccination against ailments (hep b) from conscious, high risk activities? Is the same logic applied the basis for giving everyone Prep for hiv? I'm not looking at this from a crunchy vaccine skeptic angle, but can't help but notice massive government expenditures for vaccines that we didn't deam "essential" in the 70s and 80s. How many of the vaccines on the current schedule ended scourges like polio? How are we doing as a society with chronic health conditions since we sank so much money into vaccines instead of other areas (don't tax as much and/or incentives for quality diets).

-herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics in food production (are we chasing profit and efficiency at the expense of health? Do we need to except glyphosate as a "cost of doing business" when you try to feed your kids? If we have an obesity problem amongst our youngest and poorest, are the current rules and markets really optimized to support overall health and to ensure that we don't prioritize cheap food at the cost of more expensive medical care?)