Home - List All Discussions

Conclusions about pro-abortionists. What is their agenda?

How they destroyed marriage, redifined parenthood, marginalized sex and legalized murder.

by: thecatholicamerican

I find that all this running around in circles leads me to a number of conclusions.
1) That the pro-abortion movement wants a society that does not want morality in any way connected to sexual activity since they in fact recognize any morality. They are only concerned with what is legal and what they can get away with.
2) That in trun means that sexual activity must in no way be linked to reproductivity and even more strangely that reproductivity must have nothing to with parent hood. Otherwise sexual activity would naturally have a component of responsibility to it.
3) Women in the pro-abortion movement are offended by the truth that their bodies are designed and constructed for reproduction, aka, making babies. It goes along with the idea that sex not only has nothing to do with sexual activity, but that sex has nothing to do with sexuality in general.
4) For those in the pro-abortion movement pregnancy is in their estimation a violation of their bodily autonomy. How dare egg and spem meet in the body of a woman? Trespassers all!
5) Those in the pro-abortion movement view sex as their right and that the value of the sex act is limited to its potential for pleasure in the use of another human beings body. This removes sex from the realm of moral expressions of love between married people and makes it simply a method of pleasure.
6) Those in the pro-abortion movement dont care that abortion is killing and thus murder. In the object of Roe v. Wade they have their "get out of jail free" card. Unfortunately they do not have their "get out of hell free" card. Legality cannot erase moral responsibility.
7) I believe that pro-abortionism is little more than another expression of radical feminism. By that I mean that there are women that want to use sex for nothing other than pleasure, resent their own sexual identity, resent their role as mothers, and resent the differences in the two sexes. In short, they view themselves as part of a genderless age that continues to bear the burden of fertility that comes from their reproductive organs.

reply from: Sigma

I think this is perceived only because the legality is focused on much more than the morality. Generally, pro-choice people believe that morals vary from person to person, not that sex has nothing to do with morality.
It is true that pro-choice people separate sex from pregnancy, but that was true with the advent of contraceptives. Most people in general view sex as separate from pregnancy.
Whatever a woman's body was "designed for" is immaterial, really. It does not imply that women must use their body for this purpose.
Only if they are required to continue it.
Now this is false. None have denied that sex is or can be an expression of love. Sex can be simply for pleasure as well, though.
Killing does not equal murder. You are right that legality cannot erase moral responsibility. Morals would be between you and God. Legality should not be involved.
Not really, no. Being pro-choice does not mean one is female, nor does it mean one resents one's body. It is the contention that the body belongs to the woman alone.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Why do you separate them? Because last time I checked, sex is the main way to get pregnant.
We're not forcing women to be mothers. We're not forcing them to have sex. That's wrong. However, when a woman becomes pregnant, she's already a mother.
I know! Doesn't it just make you sick that if abortion were illegal, women wouldn't be able to kill their children? Prolifers make me so angry!

reply from: Sigma

Because sex isn't done solely to become pregnant. People have sex for other purposes, as theamericancatholic has already admitted.
You wish to force women to continue their pregnancies against their will, however. You wish to require them to give birth when they do not wish to.
Well, good! I'm glad to see you're pro-choice

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Just because people have sex for diffrent reasons doesn't mean pregnancy has nothing to do with sex. In fact, pregnancy has everything to do with sex.
Oh yes, we just love to torment women. Sigma, have you ever thought of the possibility that we consider both people involved ina pregnancy? We don't want to illegalize abortion to torture women, we want to illegalize it so that millions of children will be saved.
So it makes you mad that women won't be able to kill their children if abortion is illegal?

reply from: Sigma

I don't mean to imply that pregnancy has nothing to do with sex, I am stating that sex does not equal pregnancy. They are separate. Consenting to one does not consent to the other.
Certainly pregnancy has a great deal to do with sex, but they are not the same thing. One may have sex for other reasons, even for it's own sake.
I know that your purpose is not to torment women, but you must admit you wish to require women to continue their pregnancies when those women do not wish to continue their pregnancies. You want to legally require women to give birth when those women do not wish to.
Your intent may be noble, but the results are not. It is not noble or moral to require women to continue their pregnancies against their will.
Would abortion being illegal make me mad? Maybe not in and of itself, but I would be mad that ignorance has prevailed.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I know that sex isn't the same thing as pregnancy. However, we can't separate them, just as we can't separate running a red light from causing an accident.
Yes, we'll be forcing women to continue their pregnancies against their will. However, I'd rather women be forced to carry their children to term than force 3500 children a day to die brutally.
And you're saying millions of children being murdered is noble? How sad.
Don't you mean you would be mad that righteousness has prevailed?

reply from: Sigma

That's a good example, because running a red light and causing an accident are not the same thing and are different offences.
If sex and pregnancy are not the same thing, then there is no logic in grouping them together. You can get pregnant without having sex (thus consenting to pregnancy without consenting to sex), and you can have sex without getting pregnant (thus consenting to sex but not pregnancy). It is valid to have sex without any intention of becoming pregnant because sex may and is done for it's own sake.
Doing something immoral for a noble end does not make you a moral person. I agree with reducing abortion. I do not agree with doing something immoral to achieve that end. That is the difference.
No, I did not say that. I said reducing abortion is a noble intent.
I do not believe your means are righteous.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

You can't separate cause and effect. If some people loved running red lights and never wanted to cause an accident, do you think they should be fined? After all, they never wanted to cause an accident, they just want to have fun running red lights. You can run a red light without causing an accident, but that's pretty darn stupid to attempt.
What exactly do you think is immoral about defending the 46,000,000 innocent children who have died in the most disgusting way?
Ending it is even better.
So you believe letting women murder their children is more righteous than prohibiting them from doing so? Huh?

reply from: Sigma

Running red lights is it's own offense for that reason. Running red lights and causing accidents are separate, but they're both illegal because we don't want people running red lights any more than we want them causing accidents. It doesn't matter whether they wanted to cause an accident because they already broke the law when they ran the red light. Causing an accident would be a completely separate offense.
You're confusing the means with the end. The end of reducing abortion may be a noble goal. The means of requiring women to continue their pregnancies against their will is immoral. The end does not justify the means.
I believe giving women more freedom rather than less is righteous. That they use their freedom for immoral purposes is sad, but does not reduce the fact that allowing those women the freedom is good.

reply from: Sigma

If you read my post you will see I said: Your intent may be noble...
I separated the intent of reducing abortion, which I classed as noble, from the means you quoted there. Gah, you are one of the worst debaters I have come across.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Exactly! It doesn't matter whether women want to get pregnant or not, the fact remains that they had sex and should pay the consequences.
Preventing women from killing their children isn't immoral, letting them do so is immoral. A child's life is more important than their mother's comfort. What about this is so hard to comprehend?
It's not like we'd be taking all of their Constitutional rights away if we illegalized abortion. They'll still have rights. Besides, it's not like the right to abortion is in the Constitution, whereas the right to life is.

reply from: Sigma

That would be true if having sex were a crime.
Requiring women to continue their pregnancies and give birth against their will is immoral, no matter your intent.
You'd be violating her right to privacy. The right to life is not explicitly in the Constitution, it's implied.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sex isn't a crime, but there are responsibilities when you have sex, one of which is getting pregnant. There's no "get out of jail free" card when you have sex.
Killing helpless children by the millions is even more immoral, no matter what your intent.
Okay, for the last time, what does the right to privacy even have to do with abortion?

reply from: Sigma

Moral responsibilities, perhaps. Moral responsibilities should not be governmentally enforced.
Doing something immoral to stop immorality does not make you a moral person.
Privacy covers a woman's decision to get an abortion.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

All laws are morals.
Who says preventing women from killing their children is immoral?
Really? Because the last time I checked, the right to privacy was the right to deny the government to search through your documents/home without a search warrant, or denying the government to force a soldier into your home. Nothing about the right to kill innocent people.

reply from: Sigma

Eh, no.
You're confusing means and ends again. Doing this by requiring women to continue their pregnancies and giving birth is immoral.
The Supreme Court has ruled that privacy covers other areas of personal life, such as contraceptive use and abortion.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Yes, they are. They're what people think is right and wrong.
Why? They got themsleves pregnant.
They also ruled blacks as non-people.

reply from: Sigma

I'm afraid not. Morality and legality are separate.
Birth and motherhood is an intensly personal experience. It should not be entered into because the woman has no other choice or is required by law. It is immoral to champion that.
3/5ths of a person, actually. Regardless, it is a fallacy to say that because one decision was wrong another is automatically so.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Then where did laws come from?
How is it immoral? Forcing a woman to get pregnant is immoral. Forcing a woman who got herself pregnant to remain pregnant is another thing.
I didn't say that. I was implying that just because the Supreme Court says so doesn't mean it's right.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Pregnancy and sex are part of an equation. Sex+Reproductivity=Pregnancy. You cant get get pregnant with out sex. (please refrain from mentioning artificial means, since those that use those means actually want to be pregnant).
How does pregnancy pertain to the privacy of the mother alone? How could it? If we even hold you to your own standards, you would have to consent to every father being notified before an abortion for his consent.
How can a society exist where morality varies from person to person? How would you like to live in a house where every one uses there own form of building measurements? A foot must equal 12 inches, 3 feet to a yard. There must be in the same way of continuity of moral thinking otherwise there can only be bedlam.
If a person can use their body for whatever use they choose why illegalize such things as prostitution? If it doesn't violate their personal morality who are we to tell anyone that it is wrong?
A woman should most certainly be required to continue her pregnancy, even forced if possible. Life is the first of all rights, if not, all other rights become negotiable.
Sex is a contract of sorts. When one engages in sex they must know that new life is a possibility. How can they expect to engage in sexual activity, the only natural way to produce offspring, and not think that it is logical to assume that pregnancy is a possible outcome?
2+2=4 You cant get around it logically. Its fact, plain, simple and pure fact. No matter how much Big Brother may bully you and lie to you, 2+2=4 and that doesn't change. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.
Systematic genocide is not a matter of personal privacy. People once thought that Jews were not human beings. The Nazi extermination camps killed 6 million Jews trying to make human history believe that lie.
People once thought that black persons were property to be bought and sold. Supreme Court decisions upheld that belief again and again. It took 4 years of civil war and a hundred years of political and social changes to erode that belief.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Isn't a man murdering his wife included in his privacy? Isn't ANY rape, murder, etc. a "private issue?" I mean, the murder/rapist/anything else doens't want anyone to know. How DARE we violate their right to privacy by prosecuting them and getting them in prison!!!

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Spousal rape is also called marital rape, wife rape, partner rape or intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA). Because there is a widely held view that a woman surrenders consent upon entering a relationship, the law has been slow to criminalize this form of rape/sexual assault.
Historically, many cultures have had a concept of a married man's conjugal right to sexual intercourse with his wife. Many United States rape statutes used to preclude prosecution of a man for sexually assaulting his own wife, including if the couple are estranged or even legally separated. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception. By 1993, this was the case throughout the United States. However, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery or spousal abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract." (1) In the late 1970's, feminists began efforts to change these laws. Currently, rape of a spouse is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (2).
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701

There are thousands of women in our country that carry a deep dark burden of secret shame. It has a name-spousal rape. Many women are unaware that what they endure, often multiple times a day, is in fact a crime. Even those that know what it is, won't report it because of the difficulties in being taken seriously, and often the threat of losing their homes, children and maybe their lives, preclude reporting it. Instead they may diffidently at first broach the subject with other women, or joke about their husbands always wanting "it" It isn't a joke. No means no. A woman has the right to say no and have that respected.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-21-2005-84604.asp

Spousal rape used to be viewed virtually as a right and at least a matter of privacy. I wonder if pro-choicers would have supported this kind if judicial insight?

reply from: NewPoster1

Good, so if the "right-to-life" outweighs all other rights, including bodily autonomy, than I presume you support forcing people to donate their spare organs (against their will). After all, it's only a temporary inconvenience for the donor, while for the recipient it means the difference between life and death.

reply from: AshMarie88

Good, so if the "right-to-life" outweighs all other rights, including bodily autonomy, than I presume you support forcing people to donate their spare organs (against their will). After all, it's only a temporary inconvenience for the donor, while for the recipient it means the difference between life and death.
You know very well that pregnancy and organ donating are two VERY different things.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Why do you keep on harping on about the donation of organs? There is no right of any kind to recieve needed organs, either stated or implied! No one has a right to demand that someone else should get chopped up so that they can live. If you go smash your car into a tree why should anyone donate their organs to you, forced or not? If a person causes you bodily harm why should you want that persons organs in your body to keep you alive? Thats sort of like a rapist asking for a womans hand in marriage to make it right?
NO ONE GETS PREGNANT BY ACCIDENT!
NO ONE SHOULD BE KILLED BECAUSE OF ANOTHER PERSONS ACTIONS!
Organ donation is a gift, a noble gesture, but not an obligation and certainly not something anyone can claim as a right.

reply from: NewPoster1

Either the "right-to-life" outweighs all other rights, or it doesn't. Which is it?

reply from: NewPoster1

Exactly, just as there is no right to remain physically inside of and physically attached to another person against their will, either stated or implied!

reply from: AshMarie88

Exactly, just as there is no right to remain physically inside of and physically attached to another person against their will, either stated or implied!
Dontcha just love irresponsibility?
*Such ignorace...*

reply from: AshMarie88

NewPoster, maybe when you come to realize killing babies, born or unborn, is wrong, you'll see why we're so against it.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

A person has the right to live. All have claim to that right so long as it does not take the life or cause the death of another.
How does the refusal of organs interfere with anothers persons right to live?
How does the illegalization of abortion interfere with a womans right to live?
Tell me something. If I give you a kidney so that you might live, do I then have the right to change my mind and ask for it back and thus cause your death?
How can a mother that has given new life to a human being have the right to change her mind and then ask for that life back and thus cause its death?

reply from: Sigma

From our desire to live together as a society. An organized society cannot function without laws.
What would constitute forcing a woman to get pregnant? Who has control over this?
I agree. It does make it legal however.

reply from: Sigma

Sex+infection=STD. You can't get a STD without sex
Because pregnancy involves her body alone. The man was involved in the sex, but men are not physically involved in pregnancy at all.
Because we have laws, which are separate from morality. Where morality varies laws do not.
Good question. The only reason I can see is for public health. There are efforts to legalize it, and I do support that with conditions that ensure certain standards for public health. What is your answer? Why is prostitution wrong?
The majority of the nation disagrees with you. How much force do you think should be allowed to force women to remain pregnant? Strapped to a table for 9 monthes?
This thinking logically extends to forced donation of non-essential organs to save others.
Were there a legal contract then I would agree the fetus has a legal right to live attached to the woman. There is no legal contract.
Are you trying to say that morals are true for the same reason that mathematical equations are true? Do you know why mathematical equations are true?

reply from: AshMarie88

Because pregnancy involves her body alone. The man was involved in the sex, but men are not physically involved in pregnancy at all.
If pregnancy involved ONLY the woman's body, she would NOT be pregnant.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you don't believe murder is wrong? After all, we can't legislate morality.
What I meant was rape. Sometimes it inderectly forces women to get pregnant.
Your point being...?

reply from: NewPoster1

Good, so if the "right-to-life" outweighs all other rights, including bodily autonomy, than I presume you support forcing people to donate their spare organs (against their will). After all, it's only a temporary inconvenience for the donor, while for the recipient it means the difference between life and death.
You know very well that pregnancy and organ donating are two VERY different things.
Really, let's see...
The fetus depends on the woman's uterus to survive...
The organ recipient depends on the donor's kidney to survive...
Even though it's safer to have an abortion, a woman can reasonably expect to live through a pregnancy...
Even though it's safer to not donate a kidney, a donor can reasonably expect to live through the surgery...
By enduring the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy, a woman can give the gift of life to a fetus.
By enduring the temporary inconvenience of surgery, an organ donor can give the gift of life to a person with kidney failure.
A woman can reasonably expect to continue her life with all bodily functions intact after pregnancy.
A kidney donor can reasonably expect to continue their life with all bodily functions intact after surgery.
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will allows the fetus to live, but violates her right to bodily autonomy.
Forcing a person to donate a kidney against their will allows a person with kidney failure to live, but violates the donor's right to bodily autonomy.
I can keep going if necessary.

reply from: yoda

The right to YOUR OWN LIFE outweighs all others, dufus...... NOT the right to ANYONE ELSE'S life.......OR ORGANS.........

reply from: AshMarie88

And might I add, a person depends on his/her organs to live, while a mom does not depend on her child to live.
That may or may not be important in this debate but, just thought I'd point it out.
Good job CP!

reply from: NerdyGerdy

Your declaring the battle over in the title!!!
Isn't it a little self defeating?

reply from: NewPoster1

So can I!
Your assumptions are incorrect. If you do even the most basic research, you'll find that 1 kidney is more than enough to perform all of the necessary functions and that the lack of a 2nd kidney in no way affects life expectancy.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,
In a discussion over men and women, the pregnancy involves the woman's body alone.

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,
Whether I believe it is wrong is immaterial as to whether it is illegal. It is illegal because it violates rights.
In the same way that normal sex indirectly forces a woman to get pregnant. A women would never have direct control over this whether she was raped or not.
What SCOTUS has said is legally enforcable.

reply from: Tam

And it is a fallacy to say that because one decision was right another is automatically so.
RIGHT, SIGMA?

reply from: Sigma

Tam
Because that will mean (if it is not illegal) that every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy.

reply from: Tam

That's your strawman; you put a hat on him.

reply from: Tam

If this were true, abortion would not exist. It is precisely because pregnancy also involves the body of a child that abortion even takes place.

reply from: Tam

Because that will mean (if it is not illegal) that every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy.
Why is that important to you?

reply from: yoda

Probabykillers want every pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy, and every one that isn't wanted to be aborted.
That's how they get "Every child a wanted child", because they want "Every unwanted child to be a dead child".

reply from: Shiprahagain

Every German a wanted German...
Every woman in Salem a wanted woman...

reply from: coco

Originally posted by: thecatholicamerican
I mean that there are women that want to use sex for nothing other than pleasure.
What do you mean by this statement??? can you clarify??

reply from: coco

and it seems to me that this intimidates you!!

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Have you ever spent 9 months with a pregnant woman?

reply from: coco

I have been that woman twice!!!!

reply from: coco

are women not suppost to enjoy sex???

reply from: coco

SEX IS A GOOD THING!!!
Yes I agree this is a throw away society, but i believe in personal responsiblity. If you are having sex and do not want to get pregnant then use condoms and the pill! Not everyone is going to be like Jessica simpson and wait till mariage. Soley teaching abstanince will not keep abortions from happening!! thier will be kids that are going to have sex and have unprotected sex which sooner or later will turn into pregnancy. SEX IS A RESPONSIBLITY, BUT SO IS EDUCATION!!

reply from: thecatholicamerican

To use sex for nothing other than pleasure means that you must use another person virtually as an object. Personhood and respect for the person is totally lost.
If a woman has frequent sex with the forthought that she will and would have an abortion if she becomes pregnant, it does not make her careless, but cold and calculating.
Having an abortion is about sexual freedom as much as prostitution is. Only in abortion the money goes the doctor.

reply from: galen

coco
TCA never said that sex was not supposed to be enjoyed... just enjoyed w/ in the confines of a marrige. You have to remeber that he is a staunch Catholic and does not believe in artifical means of BC.
Mary

reply from: coco

So sexual freedom is a bad thing???

reply from: coco

I guess that I believe you could do what you want and be responsible for your actions and you do not harm anyone else. what or who is in between your legs is your business not mine but do not hurt anyone and as long as they are of legal age.

reply from: coco

CP ARE THOSE NUMBERS ACURATE???
WOW!!!!

reply from: galen

That is the problem w/ stats ... there is no real way to know...
i do not think the real problem is religion anyhow... more a problem of morals.
To quote Greg House ( a tv guy my son watches)
" everybody lies"
Mary

reply from: galen

Besides coco... what is wrong with TCA's opinion... you now by looking at his moniker what he is... why go head to head with him on a point that is not going to change.
TCA has always debated here with his religion... now however he is debating from a much more moralistic veiwpoint, i for one find it refreshing. I always knew where he got his ideas...now they are said in terms that more people can handle.
Be nice!.
I think you are being too antagonistic twards someone who is basicly on the same side.
Mary

reply from: Sigma

I believe motherhood is too important, sacred even, to be entered into unwillingly. I believe wanted pregnancies are less emotionally and mentally stressful on a woman, and wanted pregnancies would lead to a decrease in babies adopted out and fewer children in the adoption system. I believe it would be a general benefit to society.

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain
You're comparing these things to wanted pregnancies?

reply from: Tam

Let me ask you something. We all recognize that the adoption system is flawed. If adoption were made illegal, and every parent were legally required to raise his/her child(ren) to adulthood, would you insist upon the parents' right to kill those children right through their 18th birthdays, if that would mean less stress for the parents and a general benefit to society? If their only choices were to raise their kids, or kill them, would you really want them to have the legal right to make the choice to kill?

reply from: Sigma

I don't believe I said that.

reply from: Sigma

No, I would insist upon a parent's right to give their children up for adoption. :S

reply from: Tam

No, I would insist upon a parent's right to give their children up for adoption. :S
Yeah, so would I, but in the meantime, while adoption was still not available to them, if their only choices were to raise the kids or kill them, would you be ok with the killing?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Just because people don't obey the Christian way doesn't mean it's flawed.
What's your point?

reply from: galen

CP,
Go watch the rest of the series... House always thinks people lie to him and they usually do.
Anyway its a pretty good show... the procedures are not too realistic but the characters are great! ( we just bought him the DVD's)
Mary

reply from: galen

you couldn't know... I wasn't chastising....
mary

reply from: Sigma

Tam,
There is no logic to that. No, I wouldn't, I would fight for their right to give their children up for adoption.
I would fight for what I believe their rights allow, not something different.

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent
I'm afraid you're wrong.

reply from: Tam

There is no logic to that. No, I wouldn't, I would fight for their right to give their children up for adoption.
I would fight for what I believe their rights allow, not something different.
So you wouldn't fight for their right to kill, because you don't believe they have that right. You would fight for their right to adopt, because you believe they have that right and it's being denied to them.
Right?

reply from: Tam

I think this nails it on the head.

reply from: yoda

Give it up, Tam, he/she isn't going to give us any more candid answers... for fear of seeing another thread with his name attached to it......

reply from: faithman

The agenda of the pro-abortion leader,
Planned Parenthood, is the promotion of secular humanism. Many PP upity ups have recieve the humanist of the year award. one of the majaor tenants of secular humanism is the destruction of the Christian church. This is also the agenda of paganism and is why most clinics have covens of witchs casting protective spells over them.

reply from: kras

Welcome to Clear Image 3D 4D Ultrasound Medical Center, Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility in Brooklyn, NY.
http://www.clearimage4dultrasound.com/

reply from: yoda

Nice images, kras.... and welcome to the board. Isn't it odd that no proaborts ever show us ultrasound images of a "blob of tissue" to prove that they aren't lying?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics