GWB hates women

[cacophony]

birth control pills = "abortion." (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1536910620080715)

i imagine bush is sitting there, counting down the days until the end of his term, checking off his to-do list. his red pen is hovering anxiously over two of the entries, salivating for the moment when he finally gets to make his mark:

1) bomb iran
2) strip women of their rights

and condoleeza rice is standing obediently next to him, holding a sweating glass of celebratory scotch on the rocks, ready and waiting for that victorious swig.

god i hate these people.

[BeautifulBurnout]

He really is quite bonkers, isn't he?

I am utterly speechless. I can only hope that this ridiculous Bill never sees the light of day.

Roll on November.

[Sean]

This is pretty ridiculous. Birth control pills are lumped in with abortion? Whatever.

I can't say I think it's fair to say Bush hates women because of it....I'm sure he would justify this stance by saying the issue is more that he loves babies....but it's doing women no favors all the same. And men for that matter too. I know it's obviously the women who conceive, but men are far too frequently left out of the parenthood equation in discussions about who's affected by this stuff.

[cacophony]

eliminating women's access to health care is the same thing as hating women. it is a horrible misogynistic thing to do.

[cacophony]

Roll on November.

january. he's still in office until january. he's got 6.5 more months of bushing it up a notch.

[Sean]

eliminating women's access to health care is the same thing as hating women. it is a horrible misogynistic thing to do.Well one, he's not "eliminating women's access to healthcare". He's equating birth control with abortion, which I agree is stupid, but that's a much narrower act than your broad statement implies.

Two, I know it may seem like semantics, but I always have a problem when anyone assumes that x must mean y, even if there is no direct correlation between the two. That's what frequently leads to things like unfounded charges of racism, or sexism, or the majority of stupid "gaffes" made by political candidates, etc. And even in Bush's case, while there are clearly many reasons to dislike him, I think we should still limit our reasons to factual issues rather than assumptions. I'm a big fan of accuracy, and it's simply inaccurate and unfounded to conclude that Bush equating birth control pills with abortion must mean that Bush hates women. But then maybe I'm wrong - can you illustrate the direct connection that would prove the accuracy of your conclusion?

[IsiliRunite]

what about babies' rights?!?

Just kidding.

[Strangelet]

i know everyone is itching to do this, so i'll just relieve the tension and get it out of the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[cacophony]

Well one, he's not "eliminating women's access to healthcare". He's equating birth control with abortion, which I agree is stupid, but that's a much narrower act than your broad statement implies.

Two, I know it may seem like semantics, but I always have a problem when anyone assumes that x must mean y, even if there is no direct correlation between the two. That's what frequently leads to things like unfounded charges of racism, or sexism, or the majority of stupid "gaffes" made by political candidates, etc. And even in Bush's case, while there are clearly many reasons to dislike him, I think we should still limit our reasons to factual issues rather than assumptions. I'm a big fan of accuracy, and it's simply inaccurate and unfounded to conclude that Bush equating birth control pills with abortion must mean that Bush hates women. But then maybe I'm wrong - can you illustrate the direct connection that would prove the accuracy of your conclusion?

i already illustrated my proof. restricting or eliminating women's access to health care = policy that is detrimental specifically to women. it solely discriminates against women, it solely keeps women in a place of poorer health care access than men. you cannot be interested in preserving the rights or welfare of women if this is your idea of fair policy. thus, it is a woman hating policy.

ipso facto.

if bush were to enact a policy that specifically and solely restricted or eliminated african americans' access to health care we wouldn't be having this discussion. but once again we're going to quibble over it because hey, it's just chicks.

[Deckard]

Bush's view on this is absolutely LOATHSOME. It disgusts me.

I have no desire whatsoever to defend Bush. He's certainly placing women's rights BELOW other factors he considers more important.

However this isn't about defending Bush. It's about defending logic.

This might be something that someone who hates women would do.
It doesn't logically follow that someone who does this must hate women.

Someone may consider x more important than y. That doesn't mean they hate y.

Bush may hate women, but your logic doesn't prove it.

Draw a proper analogy with African Americans or homosexuals and the same logic will apply.

[Strangelet]

right.. i might not always cut up all 6 pack soda rings, doesn't mean I hate water fowl.

[cacophony]

screw everyone. i'll take up the debate with anyone else woke up at 5 a.m. starving half to death with 4 legs kicking the shit out of their cervix.

i'm cranky. i'll apologize in october.

[Deckard]

I almost want to agree with you just for that. ;)

[dubman]

i know sean is all about "call a spade a spade but only when it's undeniably a spade and not potentially a club in disguise" but i have to go with cacophony.
it's not the kind of hate that consumes someone and result in x legislation, but i think you have to have a healthy contempt for women, as religious views tend to coerce you into, to strip them of their right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body without crusty old men trying to thinly disguise their control issues over it with this sort of bullshit.

but also, just to prove how singular-minded this is:
any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation

means that masturbation is an abortion, and even more technically, millions of abortions. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
there's a thousand things a fetus can do while it's developing. one of them is to actually turn into a cancerous tumor. sacred!

[Sean]

screw everyone. i'll take up the debate with anyone else woke up at 5 a.m. starving half to death with 4 legs kicking the shit out of their cervix.

i'm cranky. i'll apologize in october.Point taken. ;)

[BeautifulBurnout]

what about babies' rights?!?

Just kidding.

Heh!

Yeah, babies have rights. Foetuses have rights when they start to be babies, although those rights need to be balanced with the mother's rights too. Unidentifiable lumps of cells that have no possible means of developing into a proper foetus without their "hosts", much less posess a brain or feelings, can't really be said to have rights that are dissociated from the rights of the "host" mother.


Cacophony - the last three months of pregnancy are pretty cool, as far as I remember, although I only had one of the little blighters practicing judo kicks and giving me a hiatus hernia. The time will fly by. I have two bits advice: 1) Get as much rest as you can now, because once they are born you will be tired for the rest of your life, no matter how much sleep you get and 2) Don't ever listen to anyone else's advice, including mine, because only you know how to be a mother to your own children :D

[Sean]

i know sean is all about "call a spade a spade but only when it's undeniably a spade and not potentially a club in disguise" but i have to go with cacophony.
it's not the kind of hate that consumes someone and result in x legislation, but i think you have to have a healthy contempt for women, as religious views tend to coerce you into, to strip them of their right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body without crusty old men trying to thinly disguise their control issues over it with this sort of bullshit.This is exactly where I tend to part ways with many on the pro-choice side of things - and please bear in mind that I myself am pro-choice, I just flatly disagree with assertions that this is about a woman's "right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body". The foundation of the argument from the pro-life side of things is built on the idea of providing rights for the unborn baby, not on depriving a woman of her right to do do whatever she wants with her own body. Clearly, the woman's body is involved in the deal, but that doesn't inherently make the position that fetuses have rights a misogynistic one.

And again, I don't agree with the pro-life stance overall, but I do think it's important to understand and acknowledge where your opponent is actually coming from in order to constructively move forward on issues. If we continue to throw around accusations like this that miss the reality, then all we're going to accomplish is more animosity as we spin off on unrelated tangents. A good analogy that's happening right now is conservatives continually accusing Obama of wanting to "surrender" in Iraq, when in fact his plan is not one of surrender at all. It's about handing control of Iraq back to Iraqis as we clearly should be doing, freeing up our troops to focus on al Qaeda, and finishing the job we started, and actually are currently beginning to lose in Afghanistan. To constantly call it "surrender" is untrue and derails the constructive dialogue we need to be having about it.

but also, just to prove how singular-minded this is:
any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation

means that masturbation is an abortion, and even more technically, millions of abortions. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
there's a thousand things a fetus can do while it's developing. one of them is to actually turn into a cancerous tumor. sacred!On this, you and I completely agree. This is extremely flawed reasoning on Bush's part, and I couldn't disagree with him more.

[cacophony]

Cacophony - the last three months of pregnancy are pretty cool, as far as I remember, although I only had one of the little blighters practicing judo kicks and giving me a hiatus hernia. The time will fly by.

the crazy thing is, there's no saying i have 3 months left. with two it's sort of anyone's game. tomorrow is week 25, so we've hit viability, after that we keep our fingers crossed and i send psychic lectures to my uterus, telling it to stay put until at least week 36. but frankly, we just have to hold on and hope and be thankful for every week that goes by that they don't decide it's time to make their arrival.

only you know how to be a mother to your own children :D
BULLSHIT! i have no idea how to be a mother to my own children! i figure i'm just going to wing it.

[cacophony]

it's not the kind of hate that consumes someone and result in x legislation, but i think you have to have a healthy contempt for women, as religious views tend to coerce you into, to strip them of their right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body without crusty old men trying to thinly disguise their control issues over it with this sort of bullshit.

this is my thinking, but you said it better than i would at this point.

[cacophony]

This is exactly where I tend to part ways with many on the pro-choice side of things - and please bear in mind that I myself am pro-choice, I just flatly disagree with assertions that this is about a woman's "right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body". The foundation of the argument from the pro-life side of things is built on the idea of providing rights for the unborn baby, not on depriving a woman of her right to do do whatever she wants with her own body. Clearly, the woman's body is involved in the deal, but that doesn't inherently make the position that fetuses have rights a misogynistic one.

if a man beats the shit out if his wife but believes it's for her own good, would you also believe he's not misogynistic?

this goes back to that same old argument about intent versus interpretation. holding someone hostage out of the belief that it accomplishes some good does not absolve you of the guilt of holding that person hostage. it doesn't make you "not a hostage holder."

stripping women of their right to control their bodies, particularly in this instance (because let's not forget we're talking about access to basic contraception) is tantamount to holding all women hostage. no matter how you slice it.

men have no equivalent. no other segment of the human population on earth has an equivalent. women are the only people who can be held hostage in this way. and we keep making excuses about the betterment of society or what god would want or whether fetuses have rights, but you can never ever ever ever abstract the discussion to the point where you remove the element where women are held hostage by these restrictions.

i say this as someone who has always been pro choice and will always be pro choice. but i also say this as someone who is currently in the midst of one of the most profound experiences that anyone can go through. i am just at the end of 24 weeks of pregnancy. that means over 8 weeks ago i started feeling two independent lives start moving inside of my abdominal cavity, and that right this very moment they even react semi-intelligently to outside stimulus. we are far beyond a cluster of undifferentiated cells.

but as someone at 24 weeks i am startlingly aware that legally these two lives could still be terminated if i so chose, both in the US and the UK. remember that 3D image i posted? is that a fetus or is that a baby? it's hard to say. for me, experiencing it first hand, it's an absolute rubber-meets-the-road point in the debate between the right to life and the right to choose. it would not be possible for me to make light of the issue, i promise you that.

so when i say a woman's right to control her own body and her right to choose and her right to have access to birth control are basic fundamental human rights, and when i say denying women that right is tantamount to holding every woman hostage, i say that without levity or blase dismissal of the issue at hand.

for once my intention is not hyperbole. you can slice and dice the issue and try to play devil's advocate and try to create definitions of misogyny that allow for the mistreatment of women so long as someone else stands to benefit, but it all boils down to one thing: when you remove a woman's right to control her own body, you hold that woman hostage and deny her the basic right of "self" that every man on earth possesses without question. that is misogyny. that is hating women. period.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

means that masturbation is an abortion, and even more technically, millions of abortions. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.



I'm safe there too as it appears many have been collecting from me for years now.

Wonder how many anti-abortionists change their minds now?

[dubman]

This is exactly where I tend to part ways with many on the pro-choice side of things - and please bear in mind that I myself am pro-choice, I just flatly disagree with assertions that this is about a woman's "right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body". The foundation of the argument from the pro-life side of things is built on the idea of providing rights for the unborn baby, not on depriving a woman of her right to do do whatever she wants with her own body. Clearly, the woman's body is involved in the deal, but that doesn't inherently make the position that fetuses have rights a misogynistic one.

it does when you shave the ambiguity-hedging and it boils down to whether women are people enough to decide what to do with a parasite growing in them. the point with that 'tumor' statement in the last post was that fetuses are primarily in development. they're meant to become babies, but could do a lot of things: turn ectopic, become lethal, spontaneously abort. i think as long as its growth is physically dependant on a woman to continue developing in the womb, it should be that woman's choice alone what to do with it. is it the best thing to ever happen to you? cool. are you repulsed by it and want it the fuck out of there? awesome. is this going to be a really hard decision that you'll be torn about? damn. do you want to prevent the whole fucking thing in the first place? fantastic. but whatever the decision is, i think it should be supported by the best medical care available. because otherwise it's telling the women who make the "wrong" decision according to dudely govt. to get fucked.
which is why it's so transparent that this godbag legislation is so unambiguously hateful and misogynistic.

[cacophony]

...whether women are people enough to decide what to do...

:)

misogyny - noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.


QED.

[dubman]

oh and cacophony, i dont know if you really *want* to hear this, but a friend of mine gave birth on the cusp of viability and one year later the kid doing extremely well for itself.
just thought i'd share.

[Sean]

it does when you shave the ambiguity-hedging and it boils down to whether women are people enough to decide what to do with a parasite growing in them. the point with that 'tumor' statement in the last post was that fetuses are primarily in development. they're meant to become babies, but could do a lot of things: turn ectopic, become lethal, spontaneously abort. i think as long as its growth is physically dependant on a woman to continue developing in the womb, it should be that woman's choice alone what to do with it. is it the best thing to ever happen to you? cool. are you repulsed by it and want it the fuck out of there? awesome. is this going to be a really hard decision that you'll be torn about? damn. do you want to prevent the whole fucking thing in the first place? fantastic. but whatever the decision is, i think it should be supported by the best medical care available. because otherwise it's telling the women who make the "wrong" decision according to dudely govt. to get fucked.
which is why it's so transparent that this godbag legislation is so unambiguously hateful and misogynistic.But you're not actually proving any point here about it being inherently misogynistic. All you're doing is giving your stance on abortion and then claiming that this stance is somehow proof that anyone who disagrees must therefore be a misogynist. But the fact is, women simply aren't at the core of the issue in this debate from the pro-life point of view. What's at the core of the issue is the problem that pro-lifers would have with you labeling a fetus as a "parasite". Of course technically, a fetus IS a parasite, but referring to it as such is pretty clearly meant as a means of de-humanizing it, and that's where the difference in ideologies lies - not in feelings towards women.

Pro-choice = the fetus is a lump of cells for a significant enough portion of pregnancy that, if circumstances warrant, we should be allowed to abort.

Pro-life = the fetus is immediately an innocent, human baby who should be protected from being killed.

And to take it a step further, if I followed your logic on the misogyny issue, I could then go ahead and say that clearly, you must hate men. Because all you're talking about here is the rights of a woman, but you're completely ignoring what the fathers of aborted babies may want, so clearly, you have no regard for men and must hate them. Would that be a fair or accurate conclusion for me to reach? Or, to be more direct about it, should pro-lifers conclude that because your concern lies primarily with women, you must hate babies.

[dubman]

1. But you're not actually proving any point here about it being inherently misogynistic. All you're doing is giving your stance on abortion and then claiming that this stance is somehow proof that anyone who disagrees must therefore be a misogynist.

2. But the fact is, women simply aren't at the core of the issue in this debate from the pro-life point of view.

3. What's at the core of the issue is the problem that pro-lifers would have with you labeling a fetus as a "parasite". Of course technically, a fetus IS a parasite, but referring to it as such is pretty clearly meant as a means of de-humanizing it, and that's where the difference in ideologies lies - not in feelings towards women.


4. And to take it a step further, if I followed your logic on the misogyny issue, I could then go ahead and say that clearly, you must hate men. Because all you're talking about here is the rights of a woman, but you're completely ignoring what the fathers of aborted babies may want, so clearly, you have no regard for men and must hate them. Would that be a fair or accurate conclusion for me to reach?

1. i cant *prove* misogyny because i'm not a woman. all i have is observations and opinions based off of them. if i'm off then okay i'd like for it to make sense otherwise one day, but two dudes arguing about what it is seems a little ludicrous to me. if you want to logically 'prove' institutionalized discrimination then i bet you can find people of all beliefs using different brands of 'logic' to swing their way. or you could just take the hard truth from those who get it in their face all day. and, i guess, be smart enough to distinguish bullshit from whats real and problematic

2. your aim is productivity, and that these people have legitimate, or at least understandable, grounding and should be heard because theyre here whether we like it or not and the sooner we live together the easier this will be. my ground is that theyre fucking retards holding back all things good and decent and should be the last people given clout or compromised with.

3. i dont believe that. i think they might believe superficially that it is, but i'm cynical and really think it stems from a long line of maintaining some form of control. again, opinion. a vehement one, but an opinion nonetheless

4. i think this is only an issue if dad doesnt have the resources to care for the kid and she still wants to have it. how this would happen is a little baffling, since no mom who wants a kid bad enough is also going to want to raise them up with nothing to give them, but who knows. but as far as having a say before a woman gets an abortion, i say it's ridiculous. guys planting one seed out of a lifetime supply compared to months of exhaustive care, risk, and obsessive health monitoring aka: doing the whole fucking thing? gtf-outta here, that's borderline facetious. you haven't done shit and dont pretend you have some conceptual say to bridge the dissonance. i dont hate men, because i dont hate myself, but i'll call a spade if it smells like one, and it's a long road to prove otherwise. i hate many MANY aspects of dudely culture and rationalization that dont sit right with me at all and keep me perpetually malcontent. and i think as long as it's that cuture that sitting comfortably meting out media, priveleges, and graciously allowing everyone else to function like they do, there's going to be problems. it's got nothing to do with gender, but what's running the hideous custerfuck currently running.

[Sean]

1. i cant *prove* misogyny because i'm not a woman. all i have is observations and opinions based off of them. if i'm off then okay i'd like for it to make sense otherwise one day, but two dudes arguing about what it is seems a little ludicrous to me. if you want to logically 'prove' institutionalized discrimination then i bet you can find people of all beliefs using different brands of 'logic' to swing their way. or you could just take the hard truth from those who get it in their face all day. and, i guess, be smart enough to distinguish bullshit from whats real and problematic

2. your aim is productivity, and that these people have legitimate, or at least understandable, grounding and should be heard because theyre here whether we like it or not and the sooner we live together the easier this will be. my ground is that theyre fucking retards holding back all things good and decent and should be the last people given clout or compromised with.

3. i dont believe that. i think they might believe superficially that it is, but i'm cynical and really think it stems from a long line of maintaining some form of control. again, opinion. a vehement one, but an opinion nonethelessWell at least we're at the core of our differences on it now, which is that I think it's important to fairly recognize the motivations behind what people with differing opinions do and say, and you, by your own admission, prefer to assign your own pre-conceived assumptions to people and reach conclusions about them as a result. To be perfectly honest, I think it's fair to say that this basically nullifies your argument, because you're knowingly ignoring facts in favor of your own personal, subjective conclusions.

4. i think this is only an issue if dad doesnt have the resources to care for the kid and she still wants to have it. how this would happen is a little baffling, since no mom who wants a kid bad enough is also going to want to raise them up with nothing to give them, but who knows. but as far as having a say before a woman gets an abortion, i say it's ridiculous. guys planting one seed out of a lifetime supply compared to months of exhaustive care, risk, and obsessive health monitoring aka: doing the whole fucking thing? gtf-outta here, that's borderline facetious. you haven't done shit and dont pretend you have some conceptual say to bridge the dissonance. i dont hate men, because i dont hate myself, but i'll call a spade if it smells like one, and it's a long road to prove otherwise. i hate many MANY aspects of dudely culture and rationalization that dont sit right with me at all and keep me perpetually malcontent. and i think as long as it's that cuture that sitting comfortably meting out media, priveleges, and graciously allowing everyone else to function like they do, there's going to be problems. it's got nothing to do with gender, but what's running the hideous custerfuck currently running.But you're no longer following your own logic here. Suddenly, you're relying on relatively reasonable consideration of facts rather than pre-conceived subjective conclusions about people.

And more importantly and relevant to the point, my second analogy that your logic would lead us to the conclusion that you must hate babies still stands completely firm.

[dubman]

how about "supple" instead of firm. or how about "indifference to fetuses is different from my attitiude towards babies, which is generally favorable yet the idea that they should come at the expense of someones well-being is exteremly questionable." how about "that's a dumb thing to say"

outside of all that, there's a flaw in your casual dismissal there, and it's this:

"pre-conceived"

it's an easy word to say (almost as much as "pretentious"), but it's wrong at this point. it's all conceived. there's nothing 'pre' about it. it's been done again and again and again that we can have a pretty good idea of what the bullshit is about at this point if we can stop dancing around it for two seconds.

"nullify"... :rolleyes:

[Sean]

there's a flaw there, and it's this:

"pre-conceived"

it's an easy word to say, but it's wrong at this point. it's all conceived. there's nothing 'pre' about it. it's been done again and again and again that we can have a pretty good idea of what the bullshit is about at this point if we can stop dancing around it for two seconds.

"nullify"... :rolleyes:So then you maintain that saying "theyre (pro-lifers) fucking retards holding back all things good and decent and should be the last people given clout or compromised with" is simply a factual statement?

And what exactly am I "dancing around"? I'm breaking down plain and simple points that directly speak to the issue. You still have yet to offer anything even remotely objective to support your conclusion that Bush and/or pro-lifers hate women.

[dubman]

1. So then you maintain that saying "theyre (pro-lifers) fucking retards holding back all things good and decent and should be the last people given clout or compromised with" is simply a factual statement?

2, And what exactly am I "dancing around"? I'm breaking down plain and simple points that directly speak to the issue. You still have yet to offer anything even remotely objective to support your conclusion that Bush and/or pro-lifers hate women.

1. my opinion is that it is factual. LOL.

2. they exist and seek control of. your plain and simple points are "dancing around" an issue that is neither plain or simple in its effects (though plain and simple in motivation). you're just engaging in more distraction like any other politics forum does.

[Sean]

how about "supple" instead of firm. or how about "indifference to fetuses is different from my attitiude towards babies, which is generally favorable yet the idea that they should come at the expense of someones well-being is exteremly questionable." how about "that's a dumb thing to say"How about "full sentences"? ;)

But more importantly, why do you feel that you deserve the consideration of a detailed, thoughtful statement like defining your position as: "indifference to fetuses is different from my attitiude towards babies, which is generally favorable yet the idea that they should come at the expense of someones well-being is exteremly questionable", yet someone with a differing viewpoint from you deserves nothing more than a thoughtless "they hate women"? What glaring hypocrisy! Why can't you see that it's equally fair for a pro-lifer to say: "indifference to women's abortion rights is different from my attitude towards women, which is generally favorable yet the idea that they should have these rights at the expense of an unborn baby's well-being is exteremly questionable"?

As for "that's a dumb thing to say" - I agree. And it's exactly comparable to what you're saying when you conclude that anti-abortion advocates inherently hate women.

your plain and simple points are "dancing around" an issue that is neither plain or simple in its effects (though plain and simple in motivation). you're just engaging in more distraction like any other politics forum does.Well one, we're not talking about every single aspect of the abortion issue here....we're only talking about the fundamentally flawed conclusion that opposition to abortion denotes hatred of women, which I've been directly addressing all along. So what exactly I'm "distracting" us from is a mystery to me. The accusation that legislation against birth control equals hatred of women is not a logical, objective progression of thoughts, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise.

If I oppose the idea of affirmative action, does that mean I hate minorities? If I support it, does that mean I hate whites? If I support a ban on guns, does that mean I hate hunters? If I support same-sex marriage, does that mean I hate the institution of marriage? If I oppose same-sex marriage, does that mean I hate gay people? If I don't like country-western music, does that mean I think Garth Brooks is a terrible person?

[dubman]

How about "full sentences"? ;)
that's for 4th grade tests.

[Sean]

if a man beats the shit out if his wife but believes it's for her own good, would you also believe he's not misogynistic?Holy crap....I just saw this. Is this a serious question? I know you're pregnant, but even that doesn't excuse the outlandishness of this analogy. I'm sorry, but beyond that, I can't muster the will to seriously reply to it. Wait....no, actually I will respond. If a man beats the shit out of his wife to stop her from killing their child, then no, I wouldn't label him as misogynistic. He didn't do it out of hatred of her for being a woman, he did it out of love for the defenseless child.

this goes back to that same old argument about intent versus interpretation. holding someone hostage out of the belief that it accomplishes some good does not absolve you of the guilt of holding that person hostage. it doesn't make you "not a hostage holder."

stripping women of their right to control their bodies, particularly in this instance (because let's not forget we're talking about access to basic contraception) is tantamount to holding all women hostage. no matter how you slice it.

men have no equivalent. no other segment of the human population on earth has an equivalent. women are the only people who can be held hostage in this way. and we keep making excuses about the betterment of society or what god would want or whether fetuses have rights, but you can never ever ever ever abstract the discussion to the point where you remove the element where women are held hostage by these restrictions.I'm not making excuses for it because I don't agree with it. All I'm doing is saying that it's counter-productive to assign hateful labels to people when they're not warranted.

Now to your point, there's legislation happening all the time that results in limitations of the choices of many different groups, but that does not inherently mean that groups on the receiving end of those limits are hated. As I said to dubman, it would be equally unfair to claim that because you support abortion rights, you must therefore hate babies and enjoy killing them. Because by your argument, you can never ever ever ever abstract the discussion to the point where you remove the element where unborn babies are terminated through abortion.

i say this as someone who has always been pro choice and will always be pro choice. but i also say this as someone who is currently in the midst of one of the most profound experiences that anyone can go through. i am just at the end of 24 weeks of pregnancy. that means over 8 weeks ago i started feeling two independent lives start moving inside of my abdominal cavity, and that right this very moment they even react semi-intelligently to outside stimulus. we are far beyond a cluster of undifferentiated cells.

but as someone at 24 weeks i am startlingly aware that legally these two lives could still be terminated if i so chose, both in the US and the UK. remember that 3D image i posted? is that a fetus or is that a baby? it's hard to say. for me, experiencing it first hand, it's an absolute rubber-meets-the-road point in the debate between the right to life and the right to choose. it would not be possible for me to make light of the issue, i promise you that.

so when i say a woman's right to control her own body and her right to choose and her right to have access to birth control are basic fundamental human rights, and when i say denying women that right is tantamount to holding every woman hostage, i say that without levity or blase dismissal of the issue at hand.I recognize that you're not being dismissive of the seriousness of the issue of abortion, but you are being dismissive of the legitimate core beliefs that motivate people on the other side of the argument. Of course extreme limitation of or loss of abortion rights directly affects women in a negative way....not to mention the men involved who would suddenly be fathers as a result. I completely agree with that. But it does not logically follow that this result means, by direct extension, that pro-lifers hate women any more than your pro-choice stance translates into hatred of babies.

I take the charge of racism, misogyny, and other labels like them extremely seriously. They should never be applied loosely, or in a case where they aren't factually accurate, otherwise we diminish their seriousness. You can only cry wolf so many times before no one believes you any more...

for once my intention is not hyperbole. you can slice and dice the issue and try to play devil's advocate and try to create definitions of misogyny that allow for the mistreatment of women so long as someone else stands to benefit, but it all boils down to one thing: when you remove a woman's right to control her own body, you hold that woman hostage and deny her the basic right of "self" that every man on earth possesses without question. that is misogyny. that is hating women. period. The pro-life stance IS NOT ABOUT A WOMAN'S BODY!!! IT'S ABOUT THE UNBORN BABY'S BODY!!! Let me once again reword what you've said to make the point super-duper clear:

when you remove a baby's right to live and be born, you hold that baby hostage and deny it the basic right of "life" that every person on earth possesses without question. that is baby murder. that is hating babies. period.

That is also not what pro-choice people like you, Dubman and I believe. Nor do pro-lifers hate women.

[dubman]

Holy crap....I just saw this. Is this a serious question? I know you're pregnant, but even that doesn't excuse the outlandishness of this analogy. I'm sorry, but beyond that, I can't muster the will to seriously reply to it. Wait....no, actually I will respond. If a man beats the shit out of his wife to stop her from killing their child, then no, I wouldn't label him as misogynistic. He didn't do it out of hatred of her for being a woman, he did it out of love for the defenseless child.

hahahahaha

so technically if a guy knows that a woman is about to get an abortion, he could beat the shit out of a woman then. AHHH YOU'RE KILLING MY BABIES BASH BASH BASH

sorry, *now* im being facetious. i understand that you really want to make sure of a label before you apply it, so that the word stays potent, but to me it's pretty obvious that it applies and i've long gotten to my monthly (yearly) quota (like ya dooo) of internet discourse on it. thats why i avoid this place 9 times out of ten. most discussion sounds like endless rationalization to make it all seem tolerable and workable when i dont see anything but deeply embedded hostility towards everything thats not the ruling culture.

i also missed that cacophony post. good one.

[Deckard]

Let me once again reword what you've said to make the point super-duper clear:

when you remove a baby's right to live and be born, you hold that baby hostage and deny it the basic right of "life" that every person on earth possesses without question. that is baby murder. that is hating babies. period.
Precisely. Be interested to see a response to this.

Because from where I'm sitting, it's not you who's playing fast and loose with logic here.

(And please folks, let's not even think of going down the "logic is cold, callous, unemotional, intellectual waffle, we're talking about real human beings here" line of defence. Logic is always relevant to argument, and "eliminating women's access to health care is the same thing as hating women" is an argument. Attempts to sideline and dismiss logic are usually tell tale signs of a lost argument.)

I swore I wouldn't come back in on this one.

[Sean]

hahahahaha

so technically if a guy knows that a woman is about to get an abortion, he could beat the shit out of a woman then. AHHH YOU'RE KILLING MY BABIES BASH BASH BASHNo....I'm applying it to a born child...let's say like 2 years old...so that the point is crystal clear. That's why I used the word "child" instead of "fetus" or "baby". If Cacophony wants to give a wildly exaggerated analogy, I'll provide an equally wildly exaggerated response.

sorry, *now* im being facetious. i understand that you really want to make sure of a label before you apply it, so that the word stays potent, but to me it's pretty obvious that it applies and i've long gotten to my monthly (yearly) quota (like ya dooo) of internet discourse on it. thats why i avoid this place 9 times out of ten. most discussion sounds like endless rationalization to make it all seem tolerable and workable when i dont see anything but deeply embedded hostility towards everything thats not the ruling culture.

i also missed that cacophony post. good one.Hm....so constructive debate and respecting the views of people whose beliefs aren't perfectly in line with your own is nothing more than "endless rationalization to make it all seem tolerable and workable when you dont see anything but deeply embedded hostility towards everything thats not the ruling culture."

I don't give a rat's ass about the "ruling culture", but I do value honesty and decency. Brushing pro-lifers with a broad stroke as inherently misogynistic is neither honest or decent.

[Sean]

Precisely. Be interested to see a response to this.

Because from where I'm sitting, it's not you who's playing fast and loose with logic here.

(And please folks, let's not even think of going down the "logic is cold, callous, unemotional, intellectual waffle, we're talking about real human beings here" line of defence. Logic is always relevant to argument, and "eliminating women's access to health care is the same thing as hating women" is an argument. Attempts to sideline and dismiss logic are usually tell tale signs of a lost argument.)

I swore I wouldn't come back in on this one.If I believed in god, I'd pray that you would stay actively involved. I feel like I'm alone in crazy town....;):D

mature edit by dubman in an effort to clearly display his awesome powers as a moderator :rolleyes: - YES I AM ALONE IN CRAZY TOWN

[dubman]

1. Hm....so constructive debate and respecting the views of people whose beliefs aren't perfectly in line with your own is nothing more than "endless rationalization to make it all seem tolerable and workable when you dont see anything but deeply embedded hostility towards everything thats not the ruling culture."

2. I don't give a rat's ass about the "ruling culture", but I do value honesty and decency. Brushing pro-lifers with a broad stroke as inherently misogynistic is neither honest or decent.

1. lol "constructive." eat it.

2. i think it's the truth, shed of most of the bullshit people excuse it with.

[cacophony]

oh and cacophony, i dont know if you really *want* to hear this, but a friend of mine gave birth on the cusp of viability and one year later the kid doing extremely well for itself.
just thought i'd share.

i hear these stories all the time. it actually is nice to hear because multiples are almost always born pre-term and i like to hear the success stories.

[cacophony]

Well at least we're at the core of our differences on it now, which is that I think it's important to fairly recognize the motivations behind what people with differing opinions do and say, and you, by your own admission, prefer to assign your own pre-conceived assumptions to people and reach conclusions about them as a result. To be perfectly honest, I think it's fair to say that this basically nullifies your argument, because you're knowingly ignoring facts in favor of your own personal, subjective conclusions.

frankly i'm baffled by your whole stance in this discussion. and by that i don't mean that i'm baffled that you don't agree. i'm baffled that your means of disagreeing is to assert that there should be a means of "proving" discrimination or effect on a group of society.

you're essentially doing a holocaust denier thing here. or the same thing people who defend slavery in america do when they try to prove that slaves actually lived well, so it wasn't such a bad institution after all.

no one can argue this with you. it's not a matter of "proof." it's a matter of a defined set of ethics. ethically you differ. fine. that's your right. but you can't "prove" ethics.


what exactly are the "facts" you expect to be presented? why don't you list a good collection of "facts" that would "prove" someone hated women?

[Deckard]

Pre-term twin here - my sis was fine, but I went straight into the incubator. Turned out perfectly fine though (well ok, matter of opinion :D )

Can't remember how many weeks... will have to ask my Mum.

[cacophony]

The accusation that legislation against birth control equals hatred of women is not a logical, objective progression of thoughts, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise.

again, i'm just completely floored by how thoroughly you're missing the very VERY elementary concept of opinion. my opinion, according to what i believe is ethically sound, is that preventing women from having access to basic contraception is in and of itself a misogynistic policy. period.

and let's be very clear here. you extrapolated that into the whole abortion issue. my statement was that bush's new policy, which seeks to find a means of restricting BASIC CONTRACEPTION for women (meaning only means that women can utilize) is inherently detrimental to women. it oppresses women in a way that no other subsection of humanity is oppressed. and that, according to my ethical code, constitutes absolute hatred of women.

in all the years i've been posting here i've never see you ask for something quite as dumbfounding as "factual" support of this type of assertion. it's like you've made a conceptual error and you're stuck in an illogical loop.

you don't prove ethics. if i were to say that i felt it was inherently amoral to utilize the death penalty and that a society that applies the death penalty is inherently hateful, would you ask for "proof" that the society is hateful? you want proof? my proof would be that the death penalty is inherently hateful and thus any society that applies it is hateful. do you see how that works? do you get that there's no "proving" an ethical assertion?

it's elementary, man. the fact that you're missing such a rudimentary concept makes me want to bang my head against the keyboard.

[dubman]

i mean i'm just going to get sillier if this goes on.
a failure to engage on a level this fundamental can only end in jokes and sarcasm

[cacophony]

Holy crap....I just saw this. Is this a serious question? I know you're pregnant, but even that doesn't excuse the outlandishness of this analogy.
sean, don't ever dismiss any of my posts as the addle-brained confusion caused by the hormonal weakness of my condition. ever.

take me seriously. i've always respected you regardless of whether i agree with you. but you crossed a line. i'm going to tell you just this once to fuck off and expect you to accept that as something you earned.

anyway.

If a man beats the shit out of his wife to stop her from killing their child, then no, I wouldn't label him as misogynistic.

i wish i knew what to say about this. it's just beyond shocking.

[dubman]

sean, don't ever dismiss any of my posts as the addle-brained confusion caused by the hormonal weakness of my condition. ever.

take me seriously. i've always respected you regardless of whether i agree with you. but you crossed a line. i'm going to tell you just this once to fuck off and expect you to accept that as something you earned.



... or that.

[cacophony]

Pre-term twin here - my sis was fine, but I went straight into the incubator. Turned out perfectly fine though (well ok, matter of opinion :D )

Can't remember how many weeks... will have to ask my Mum.

excellent! what makes it harder is that i do content management and user experience for an online medical information company now, and just about every day our news division covers some ridiculous story about how anything and everything that happens during pregnancy means long-term harm for your unborn child.

like the study we published the other day that said women who eat nuts every day while pregnant will likely have kids who have asthma. and that women who use their cell phone more than 3 times a day while pregnant will have kids with behavioral problems. and that kids with moms who work outside of the home are more likely to have allergies. or that washing your hands with antibacterial soap while pregnant will make your kids develop autism.

usually when we delve into the studies we find out the funding is totally biased and the scientific methods were not exactly scientific. but still. i have to sit and listen to these studies every day and after a while it becomes difficult to believe that ANYONE was ever born healthy.

so thank you! it helps.

[Sarcasmo]

excellent! what makes it harder is that i do content management and user experience for an online medical information company now, and just about every day our news division covers some ridiculous story about how anything and everything that happens during pregnancy means long-term harm for your unborn child.

like the study we published the other day that said women who eat nuts every day while pregnant will likely have kids who have asthma. and that women who use their cell phone more than 3 times a day while pregnant will have kids with behavioral problems. and that kids with moms who work outside of the home are more likely to have allergies. or that washing your hands with antibacterial soap while pregnant will make your kids develop autism.

usually when we delve into the studies we find out the funding is totally biased and the scientific methods were not exactly scientific. but still. i have to sit and listen to these studies every day and after a while it becomes difficult to believe that ANYONE was ever born healthy.

so thank you! it helps.

LOL...don't do crack or play a lot of contact sports, and your babes will be born just fine. Don't pay too much attention to the rest of the drivel, because worrying while carrying a child to term will cause that child to develop a sociopathic personality...or some shit.;)

[cacophony]

^ we actually published a study that said essentially, "taking antidepressants during pregnancy may cause pre-term labor. however don't stop taking them because being depressed during pregnancy may cause pre-term labor."

i felt like it was irresponsible to publish it because the last thing a depressed pregnant woman needs to read is that uncontrollable circumstances of her very existence may compromise the viability of her baby.



they should just have titled the study We Don't Know Why Stuff Happens, But We're Pretty Good at Making Stuff Up.

[Sarcasmo]

We Don't Know Why Stuff Happens, But We're Pretty Good at Making Stuff Up.

Or For God's Sake, Don't Get Out Of Bed! Why Are You Reading This? Don't You Know What You're Doing To Your Retinas?

[Sean]

Okay, first things first.

sean, don't ever dismiss any of my posts as the addle-brained confusion caused by the hormonal weakness of my condition. ever.

take me seriously. i've always respected you regardless of whether i agree with you. but you crossed a line. i'm going to tell you just this once to fuck off and expect you to accept that as something you earned.Just this morning, you said: "screw everyone. i'll take up the debate with anyone else woke up at 5 a.m. starving half to death with 4 legs kicking the shit out of their cervix.

i'm cranky. i'll apologize in october."

I was simply referencing that post. If you feel that's worthy of a response as crass as what you just said, then so be it.

frankly i'm baffled by your whole stance in this discussion. and by that i don't mean that i'm baffled that you don't agree. i'm baffled that your means of disagreeing is to assert that there should be a means of "proving" discrimination or effect on a group of society.So what are you saying - you can call anyone you'd like a racist or a misogynist or whatever your heart desires, and then no one can ask you to qualify your assertion? Since when did these concepts become so freakishly subjective?

"That guy's a racist."

"Oh, really? What did he do that was racist?"

"Whaddya mean 'what did he do?' I just told you, he's a racist"

"Okay, but did he call a black person the 'n' word, or maybe use some other racial slur...something like that?"

"Whatever....you're not makin' any sense, dude".

you're essentially doing a holocaust denier thing here. or the same thing people who defend slavery in america do when they try to prove that slaves actually lived well, so it wasn't such a bad institution after all.Are you kidding me with even more ridiculous analogies? The reality of the holocaust can be proved through the fact that 6 million Jews were killed in concentration camps. It can be proved that slaves didn't live well because they were ripped from their home country, sold into a lifetime of work for no reward, they were beaten, sexually assaulted, and killed if they did something their "owner" didn't approve of....like try to be free. And our President is supposedly misogynistic because he lumps birth control in with abortion? Really? That's the solid example that compares to the evidence that slavery was wrong, or that the holocaust actually happened? I mean, it certainly proves that he makes some dumb-ass decisions, but hating women?

no one can argue this with you. it's not a matter of "proof." it's a matter of a defined set of ethics. ethically you differ. fine. that's your right. but you can't "prove" ethics.Yes, you can argue it with me, but so far, no one seems to have actually tried. The title of this thread asserts a conclusion in a factual manner, NOT as a personal opinion. "GWB hates women". I'm simply asking for a logical progression of thought that leads us from "George Bush equates birth control with abortion" through to "George Bush hates women". It seems that this request is so brutally difficult that neither you or Dubman have been able to offer anything more than saying the assertion itself is somehow all the explanation that's necessary, or now, to fall back on saying it's just your opinion. Well, while Dubman did at least qualify his assertions with comments like "in my opinion...", you've been stating your conclusions as fact up until now. Statements like:

"...it is a woman hating policy"

or

"that is misogyny. that is hating women. period"

I don't think I'm showing poor comprehension skills when I take these and other comments like them as intended to be factual, objective assertions. Had you framed your comments as opinion rather than as fact, then we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. But suddenly trying to spin it around and act as if I'm asking for something totally outlandish and unreasonable is a total cop-out. If you call someone something as serious as sexist, then yeah, I personally want to know what they did that was sexist. This is a discussion forum, and I want to discuss when I see an assertion that I find to be fundamentally flawed or unfair.

what exactly are the "facts" you expect to be presented? why don't you list a good collection of "facts" that would "prove" someone hated women? How about a direct act by Bush that illustrates his sexism? An act that doesn't require a huge assumption to make it apply. Is that really so unreasonable? It's common knowledge that the pro-life stance is based on the idea that fetuses are human beings who need to be protected. That core belief in no way implies sexism. You've artificially injected your conclusion of sexism into it in the case of Bush, based on nothing more than an extremely thin assumption that since this concern over unborn babies has a negative affect on a woman's right to choose, then Bush must hate women. Hell, maybe it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that based on what we know, it's still an assumption and therefore doesn't warrant being stated as fact. As I said earlier, it's no different than me saying that since you're pro-choice, presumably because you recognize that there are a myriad of reasons related to health, psychology, etc that justify it....doesn't matter! Abortion results in the termination of a fetus - SO YOU HATE BABIES! BABY HATER! And the great thing is that now, if I get the same pass that you're claiming you should have, I don't need to qualify that assertion with any logic at all!

If you want something specific that you can do to satisfy my request, then then there it is - explain to me how you saying Bush hates women is any more correct than me saying that you hate babies. Or just stick with saying it's just your opinion, and I'm fine with that too. But you started off by stating your conclusions in an undeniably objective way, and that's what I was responding to. So there ya' have it.

And incidentally, the discussion between Dubman and I is where the extrapolation to abortion in general happened, so you and I don't need to discuss it at all.

[Sean]

i mean i'm just going to get sillier if this goes on.
a failure to engage on a level this fundamental can only end in jokes and sarcasmYou're way out of your depth on this one. All you've had to offer is thoughtfulness about what motivates your own personal beliefs, and thoughtlessness about what motivates the beliefs of those who differ with you. And when pressed to address a simple progression of logic, you came back with insults and condescension, but absolutely no substance.

I'd love to hear you answer the same question I posed to Cacophony. Explain to me how you saying Bush hates women because of this is any more correct than me saying that you hate babies since you're pro-choice.

[dubman]

You're way out of your depth on this one. All you've had to offer is thoughtfulness about what motivates your own personal beliefs, and thoughtlessness about what motivates the beliefs of those who differ with you. And when pressed to address a simple progression of logic, you came back with insults and condescension, but absolutely no substance.

if you mean depth to say who can be the bigger pedantic asshole here, then yeah, i'm outta my element, walter.
i wasnt here for debate, and rarely am. im not terrifically interested in your viewpoint because it's not original and pretty predictable. i'm just here to say my peice as i know it and if you have something smart for it then i'll listen. all i hear is waffling and cowardice, so yeah i'm going to be condescending. it's not like you havent been either, so PARTY HARD.

and dont write that dirge and pretend youre still interested in "discussion" anymore

[Deckard]

This is what I'm hearing. Someone tell me if this is incorrect...

Someone considers the right of an unborn foetus to live (even) more important than the rights of the mother. Since the consequences of this lead to a detrimental encroachment on the mother's rights/health, this person therefore hates women.


If that interpretation of the argument is incorrect in some way, please point out which words.

Otherwise, no matter how many times I go through it, I just see a poor argument. I mean, you take out some of the emotive stuff... that it's George BUSH!!! That he's a MAN!!!! ... and it seems to me that's the argument you're left with.

So I guess you'd extrapolate the same thing if it was a woman saying what Bush said? That this woman must obviously hate women?

Listen, after reading the link in the first post, I fully share the view that "Bush is a complete bastard" and that "Bush should be showing much more concern for the the woman than the foetus". But that's an opinion, an opinion that's based on my own premise that believing in the potential of a bunch of cells (even) more strongly than in the health and rights of a living breathing human being (woman) is utterly wrong.

Bush almost certainly does not share that premise. His premise is that those cells are as sacred as any other human life, and that removing/aborting them is equivalent to killing. If that's his premise, then quite obviously his conclusion will be different. I have yet to see a single demonstration of how this proves he hates women.

I will absolutely condemn it (and him), but as I said earlier, it's still only evidence of him prioritising x (not "murdering" a foetus) over y (the welfare of the mother), not evidence of him hating y.

You may think it's evidence of him not considering y enough. Again, that's not the same as hating y if he's saying the consequence to x, the foetus, is worse than the consequence to y, the mother.

If he didn't give any credence to x, if he didn't value the life of a foetus, then I think you'd absolutely have a rock solid case that, yes, GWB hates women.

As I said before, it will be easy for people to dismiss this kind of approach to the discussion as just head-up-arse logic nonsense, and for me to sound like some uncaring academic turning real people's lives into a math(s) equation. I happen to think there is some value to testing these things logically, and stripping bare some of the emotive baggage that can cloud an argument. Reason isn't something you just turn on when it works, but turn off when your argument lacks it, and dismiss as unimportant. And resorting to dismissing it all as pedantic, as waffle (as you're doing dubman), is just a cowardly way out.

Let's go out on a hypothetical here... if by some miracle in 100 years time, men can give birth, and a futuristic George Bush makes the same pronouncement about birth control and abortion, will you insist that this officially proves that GWB hates men and women?

Once again, I really don't see any ethical difference in this thread between people. I just see a difference in logic that, combined with this being an emotive subject, is getting people wound up. Which is why I think it's useful to get beneath it.

[cacophony]

I don't think I'm showing poor comprehension skills when I take these and other comments like them as intended to be factual, objective assertions.

then i have no idea what to say to you. it's elementary and you are missing it and missing it and missing it in a way that you're usually too intelligent to miss.

in all of the time i've been posting here you've never been as ignorant, arrogant or, frankly, as offensive as you've been in this thread. you're no more engaged in a rational discussion than anyone else, in spite of your self-righteous insistence that you are.

i'm done discussing it with you. and this time do me a favor and don't PM me telling me, "no no, i really do like women" to try to justify how you spent 6 pages insisting that sexism is a figment of everyone's imagination and how you put more energy into playing that tiny violin for father's rights than attempting to comprehend what it means to tell a woman that she can't even take a birth control pill in order to protect her own health.

it's not about disagreeing with what's been said. please disagree, that's what makes a world forum a world forum. and this ain't my first rodeo, i've discussed abortion rights with any number of people with opinions ranging from "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" to "god sez women are just vessels." in fact 2 days ago i debated abortion rights with someone far more liberal than i, and i was the one pitching the pro-life arguments.

it's not about disagreement. it's the way you've presented your disagreement in this thread.

there's something that clicks on in you when women's rights become an issue that i don't see click on in anyone else. whatever it is, it gets you personally defensive and you go on an attack in a manner that i don't see in you in other discussions. i don't like it and frankly i don't like you much right now.

so don't mind me, i'll just sit here quietly in the corner, waiting patiently to find out if the men who run this nation will let me continue to protect my own health, trying so so hard not to "cry wolf" and struggling to control my silly, irrational feminine hormones.

[cacophony]

This is what I'm hearing. Someone tell me if this is incorrect...

"Someone considers the right of an unborn foetus to live (even) more important than the rights of the mother. Since the consequences of this lead to a detrimental encroachment on the mother's rights/health, this person therefore hates women."

that's not correct. i again refer back to the original post and the original link. the new regulation does not just affect funding for abortion, funding for abortifacient procedures, or even the gray area of IUDs where a device inhibits implantation before the fertilized egg has divided or satisfied the medical definition of viability (there are two definitions, one is the viability of the pregnancy which can happen back within the first 5-6 weeks and the other is the viability of the fetus, which is usually around 25 weeks). the new regulation even seeks to erect roadblocks for birth control methods that offer protection before fertilization. oral contraceptives operate by preventing ovulation, meaning no egg is present when sperm is present. there is no abortion issue because egg and sperm never meet.

unfortunately many pro-life advocates misunderstand the function of oral contraceptives and believe the egg is still released and the contraceptive inhibits fertilization or implantation. so opposition to the birth control pill is actually quite strong in many parts of the pro-life community. it's a belief founded on willful ignorance because it's simply physiologically untrue and the information illustrating the mechanism of hormonal birth control is readily available. those who adhere to the belief that oral contraception is tantamount to abortion in this day and age do so because they are motivated by something beyond a simple desire to protect embryos. because if it were simply about embryos, the debate would never take place. there is no embryo. but the debate continues because it changes shape, no longer emphasizing the reality of fertilization and implantation.

it is my OPINION (emphasis apparently necessary in this thread) that those who fail to educate themselves about the mechanism of hormonal contraceptives and instead leap to eliminate access to them are acting out of something other than concern for embryonic rights. i've never once said that those who seek to prevent abortion or abortifacient contraceptive methods hate women for that sole reason. i never brought the overarching pro-life agenda into this discussion.

and in fact, it may surprise everyone to know that i personally oppose the use of IUDs because even as a pro-choice advocate i believe first and foremost in personal responsibility as well as the sacredness of human life. in my OPINION part of the responsibility of having the choice means taking every step to ensure that fertilization is prevented. yeah, i'm a pro-choicer who actually does believe that something happens at the moment of fertilization that changes the ball game. i know it would be a hell of a lot easier for argument's sake to decide that i'm a feminazi who enjoys "crying wolf" just to stick it to the man, but there you go.

so if bush's restrictions spoke specifically to abortion procedures and abortifacient contraceptive methods alone, i would not make the claim that his policy is fundamentally misogynistic. however, that's not what he is proposing.

his proposal includes an attempt to restrict the above mentioned hormonal contraceptive methods that prevent ovulation. these are methods that affect women alone. he isn't taking condoms off the table, which prevent sperm from entering the vaginal canal, he's speaking to a method that only affects womens' health. the pill is essentially the same as any other barrier method, whether it be condom, female condom, diaphragm or cervical cap. for some reason if it's a barrier that affects the penis, we don't even debate it. if it's a barrier that affects anything north of the cervix suddenly we have an ethical dilemma.

it's a debate that never affects the health of men. not because i'm a hateful wolf-crying feminazi, but because we never take it there. women may host a pregnancy but fertilization is never possible without men. yet we never discuss whether or not we should consider measures, mechanical or hormonal, to prevent women from being hosed down with millions and millions of very goal-oriented and tenacious spermatazoa.

no, unfortunately the sin always falls on the women. as i said, i'm a pro-choicer who believes first and foremost in personal responsibility. in a way i am fundamentally ethically pro-life in that i personally believe that no one with any control over the matter should risk an unwanted pregnancy. ever. i find it unfortunate that abortion for non-medical reasons are necessary in this world. i find it unfortunate that people choose not to protect themselves and i find it unfortunate that sometimes women get raped. it's a crying shame of a world we live in but there you go, so where do we go from here? a pro-ilfer would say, "sucks for you but the baby's in charge now." as a pro-choicer i have to insist that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is essentially holding her hostage. (i do think, personally, in a way that i feel completely non-obligated to "prove" to anyone, that this sudden reversal in the belief in liberty is inherently misogynistic. whoops, i guess i am a "crying wolf" feminazi after all! sorry, fellas!)

anyway, all of this is to say that i am at no point saying the foundation of the pro-life agenda has anything to do anyone's opinion about whether or not women are to be hated, disliked or distrusted.

where i am saying this is the case is when the same pro-lifers who care about not aborting potential humans suddenly want to prevent a widely available contraceptive method that is in no way abortifacient and which directly affects the health of all women. when the pro-life agenda reaches this irrational point, when restrictions are proposed for contraceptive methods that in no way touch the abortion issue, and in fact only suit to meet the pro-life agenda by preventing ovulation while at the same time protecting women from a range of health issues, that's when it becomes all about women and not about babies.

the issue of hormonal contraception isn't about babies. period. never can be because egg and sperm will never meet. this is basic physiological information. it is not up for debate. those in the pro-life community who choose to bar access to these methods have moved far beyond the call for embryonic rights. they have moved into an arena of control over women's actions. they have moved into the arena of preventing sexual intercourse as a means of abortion prevention. george w bush has passed this kind of policy before. i wonder if anyone remembers back to his early days in office when he changed the AIDS prevention policy in africa so that no organization receiving federal funding would be allowed to discuss contraception AT ALL. in order to qualify for that funding, organizations were instructed to discuss ONLY abstinence. they don't believe in your right to protect yourself, they believe, as monty python said, that every sperm is sacred.

except in their case they're never really all that interested in doing anything about the sperm. they instead prefer to put the onus back on the woman and make their arguments about oral contraceptives.

this section of the pro-life community that seeks to prohibit sex, of which GWB is a member by practice, is not motivated by its love for babies. the motivation is about control. and in the vast majority of cases this motivation is acted out in a way that affects women only. such as eliminating access to the birth control pill.

where it becomes outright misogynistic is that this barrier actually sets women up for worse health later in life. countless studies have shown that the pill reduces incidences of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine and endometrial cancer, even colorectal cancer due to the lowering effect estrogen has on levels of bile acid in the colon. for a number of factors i could go into but won't unless anyone is interested, the hormonal contraception has been one of the biggest medical benefits to women in the history of medical science. remove the pill and expect women's life expectancies to roll back.

this is basic physiology and basic science. if in the face of basic science pro-lifers still insist on preventing women from accessing this method of health care, and i reiterate that this method affects fertilization and implantation in NO WAY, then it is not about babies. it's not about embryos or fetuses or future generations. it's about women. controlling what women do with their bodies.

it is an inherently anti-woman policy because it in no way achieves the stated goal of preventing abortion and only impacts women's health in a negative way. it is detrimental to women. it is a policy borne of mistrust or hatred of women. all the stuff about loving babies is just smoke and mirrors at this particular junction in the abortion debate.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

playing that tiny violin


I like violins.

But really, nobody's getting any of those for a long time. (BB could you put a yellow, have a nice day smiley here?) :)

Edit: Sure :)

(PS - I have no idea why you can't do smileys, and I have looked at the mod control panel and can't fathom it from there either. J x)

[Deckard]

Cacophony - strictly sticking to post 55 (because I thought #54 was uncalled for) - thank you for taking the time to write all that. I stand corrected on referring to abortion/foetus, I didn't have a proper grasp of all the implications of the removal of female contraception, and I agree it does indeed raise questions of judgment and double-standards, such as why condoms haven't been taken off the table, that make me want to re-evaluate all this.

I'm going to read through everything again before I comment further.

[Strangelet]

I have to say I agree with sean to a larger extent. But only because he's making a strictly logical argument between action and intent. And i'm not going to say anything more because I'm afraid of cacophony.

[Sean]

and dont write that dirge and pretend youre still interested in "discussion" anymoreOh, I'm really not interested in continuing a futile attempt at having any meaningful discussin with you on this any more. You've seen to that very handily.

[Sean]

then i have no idea what to say to you. it's elementary and you are missing it and missing it and missing it in a way that you're usually too intelligent to miss.

in all of the time i've been posting here you've never been as ignorant, arrogant or, frankly, as offensive as you've been in this thread. you're no more engaged in a rational discussion than anyone else, in spite of your self-righteous insistence that you are.

i'm done discussing it with you. and this time do me a favor and don't PM me telling me, "no no, i really do like women" to try to justify how you spent 6 pages insisting that sexism is a figment of everyone's imagination and how you put more energy into playing that tiny violin for father's rights than attempting to comprehend what it means to tell a woman that she can't even take a birth control pill in order to protect her own health.

it's not about disagreeing with what's been said. please disagree, that's what makes a world forum a world forum. and this ain't my first rodeo, i've discussed abortion rights with any number of people with opinions ranging from "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" to "god sez women are just vessels." in fact 2 days ago i debated abortion rights with someone far more liberal than i, and i was the one pitching the pro-life arguments.

it's not about disagreement. it's the way you've presented your disagreement in this thread.

there's something that clicks on in you when women's rights become an issue that i don't see click on in anyone else. whatever it is, it gets you personally defensive and you go on an attack in a manner that i don't see in you in other discussions. i don't like it and frankly i don't like you much right now.

so don't mind me, i'll just sit here quietly in the corner, waiting patiently to find out if the men who run this nation will let me continue to protect my own health, trying so so hard not to "cry wolf" and struggling to control my silly, irrational feminine hormones.What clicks on in me has nothing to do with whether it's women's rights or not. It has to do with me having a problem with seeing any extremely harsh accusations thrown at anyone unfairly. Thus the references to racism as well. And now apparently I've been labelled as a misogynist too - a label that couldn't be further from the truth, and which I find to be extremely unfortunate and troubling.

Is sexism a figment of people's imagination? Hell no. Please show me a single place where I said that or anything even close to it, and I will apologize whole-heartedly. Seriously....please go through my posts and provide the quotes that illustrate me making that point in any way shape or form, because I just re-read this whole thread to see if I missed a place where what I said may have come across that way unintentionally, and I didn't see anything that struck me that way. I also didn't see any energy invested in playing a "tiny violin for father's rights". I only saw two sentences out of all my posts, paragraphs and sentences here that mentioned the idea that "men are far too frequently left out of the parenthood equation in discussions about who's affected by this stuff." Not sure where the perception that I "put more energy into playing that tiny violin" comes from based on that.

And having just read back over all the posts here, frankly, I didn't start getting bothered until after dubman's post that said "theyre fucking retards holding back all things good and decent and should be the last people given clout or compromised with" as a response to my statement that "What's at the core of the issue is the problem that pro-lifers would have with you labeling a fetus as a 'parasite'. Of course technically, a fetus IS a parasite, but referring to it as such is pretty clearly meant as a means of de-humanizing it, and that's where the difference in ideologies lies - not in feelings towards women." Things like this make it hard for me to understand how it could be concluded that I'm the one who's been displaying an unreasonable and confrontational attitude here.

Anyway, you jumped right into the middle of that, and equated the point I'd been trying to make with "if a man beats the shit out if his wife but believes it's for her own good, would you also believe he's not misogynistic?" Not exactly a fair interpretation of what I'd been saying up until then. And when I replied light-heartedly (honestly, that is how it was meant, which is why I even said right after it that I wasn't being serious) referring back to your presumably light-hearted comments (which I know did still convey a serious point) about being, in your words, "cranky", you came back and told me to "fuck off". Again, I don't feel it's fair to say that I brought the confrontational approach to that one. I can understand if my comment was not clearly enough framed as light-hearted, but needless to say, being told to "fuck off" was unexpected at best.

[Sean]

that's not correct. i again refer back to the original post and the original link. the new regulation does not just affect funding for abortion, funding for abortifacient procedures, or even the gray area of IUDs where a device inhibits implantation before the fertilized egg has divided or satisfied the medical definition of viability (there are two definitions, one is the viability of the pregnancy which can happen back within the first 5-6 weeks and the other is the viability of the fetus, which is usually around 25 weeks). the new regulation even seeks to erect roadblocks for birth control methods that offer protection before fertilization. oral contraceptives operate by preventing ovulation, meaning no egg is present when sperm is present. there is no abortion issue because egg and sperm never meet.

unfortunately many pro-life advocates misunderstand the function of oral contraceptives and believe the egg is still released and the contraceptive inhibits fertilization or implantation. so opposition to the birth control pill is actually quite strong in many parts of the pro-life community. it's a belief founded on willful ignorance because it's simply physiologically untrue and the information illustrating the mechanism of hormonal birth control is readily available. those who adhere to the belief that oral contraception is tantamount to abortion in this day and age do so because they are motivated by something beyond a simple desire to protect embryos. because if it were simply about embryos, the debate would never take place. there is no embryo. but the debate continues because it changes shape, no longer emphasizing the reality of fertilization and implantation.

it is my OPINION (emphasis apparently necessary in this thread) that those who fail to educate themselves about the mechanism of hormonal contraceptives and instead leap to eliminate access to them are acting out of something other than concern for embryonic rights. i've never once said that those who seek to prevent abortion or abortifacient contraceptive methods hate women for that sole reason. i never brought the overarching pro-life agenda into this discussion.

and in fact, it may surprise everyone to know that i personally oppose the use of IUDs because even as a pro-choice advocate i believe first and foremost in personal responsibility as well as the sacredness of human life. in my OPINION part of the responsibility of having the choice means taking every step to ensure that fertilization is prevented. yeah, i'm a pro-choicer who actually does believe that something happens at the moment of fertilization that changes the ball game. i know it would be a hell of a lot easier for argument's sake to decide that i'm a feminazi who enjoys "crying wolf" just to stick it to the man, but there you go.

so if bush's restrictions spoke specifically to abortion procedures and abortifacient contraceptive methods alone, i would not make the claim that his policy is fundamentally misogynistic. however, that's not what he is proposing.

his proposal includes an attempt to restrict the above mentioned hormonal contraceptive methods that prevent ovulation. these are methods that affect women alone. he isn't taking condoms off the table, which prevent sperm from entering the vaginal canal, he's speaking to a method that only affects womens' health. the pill is essentially the same as any other barrier method, whether it be condom, female condom, diaphragm or cervical cap. for some reason if it's a barrier that affects the penis, we don't even debate it. if it's a barrier that affects anything north of the cervix suddenly we have an ethical dilemma.

it's a debate that never affects the health of men. not because i'm a hateful wolf-crying feminazi, but because we never take it there. women may host a pregnancy but fertilization is never possible without men. yet we never discuss whether or not we should consider measures, mechanical or hormonal, to prevent women from being hosed down with millions and millions of very goal-oriented and tenacious spermatazoa.

no, unfortunately the sin always falls on the women. as i said, i'm a pro-choicer who believes first and foremost in personal responsibility. in a way i am fundamentally ethically pro-life in that i personally believe that no one with any control over the matter should risk an unwanted pregnancy. ever. i find it unfortunate that abortion for non-medical reasons are necessary in this world. i find it unfortunate that people choose not to protect themselves and i find it unfortunate that sometimes women get raped. it's a crying shame of a world we live in but there you go, so where do we go from here? a pro-ilfer would say, "sucks for you but the baby's in charge now." as a pro-choicer i have to insist that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is essentially holding her hostage. (i do think, personally, in a way that i feel completely non-obligated to "prove" to anyone, that this sudden reversal in the belief in liberty is inherently misogynistic. whoops, i guess i am a "crying wolf" feminazi after all! sorry, fellas!)

anyway, all of this is to say that i am at no point saying the foundation of the pro-life agenda has anything to do anyone's opinion about whether or not women are to be hated, disliked or distrusted.

where i am saying this is the case is when the same pro-lifers who care about not aborting potential humans suddenly want to prevent a widely available contraceptive method that is in no way abortifacient and which directly affects the health of all women. when the pro-life agenda reaches this irrational point, when restrictions are proposed for contraceptive methods that in no way touch the abortion issue, and in fact only suit to meet the pro-life agenda by preventing ovulation while at the same time protecting women from a range of health issues, that's when it becomes all about women and not about babies.

the issue of hormonal contraception isn't about babies. period. never can be because egg and sperm will never meet. this is basic physiological information. it is not up for debate. those in the pro-life community who choose to bar access to these methods have moved far beyond the call for embryonic rights. they have moved into an arena of control over women's actions. they have moved into the arena of preventing sexual intercourse as a means of abortion prevention. george w bush has passed this kind of policy before. i wonder if anyone remembers back to his early days in office when he changed the AIDS prevention policy in africa so that no organization receiving federal funding would be allowed to discuss contraception AT ALL. in order to qualify for that funding, organizations were instructed to discuss ONLY abstinence. they don't believe in your right to protect yourself, they believe, as monty python said, that every sperm is sacred.

except in their case they're never really all that interested in doing anything about the sperm. they instead prefer to put the onus back on the woman and make their arguments about oral contraceptives.

this section of the pro-life community that seeks to prohibit sex, of which GWB is a member by practice, is not motivated by its love for babies. the motivation is about control. and in the vast majority of cases this motivation is acted out in a way that affects women only. such as eliminating access to the birth control pill.

where it becomes outright misogynistic is that this barrier actually sets women up for worse health later in life. countless studies have shown that the pill reduces incidences of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine and endometrial cancer, even colorectal cancer due to the lowering effect estrogen has on levels of bile acid in the colon. for a number of factors i could go into but won't unless anyone is interested, the hormonal contraception has been one of the biggest medical benefits to women in the history of medical science. remove the pill and expect women's life expectancies to roll back.

this is basic physiology and basic science. if in the face of basic science pro-lifers still insist on preventing women from accessing this method of health care, and i reiterate that this method affects fertilization and implantation in NO WAY, then it is not about babies. it's not about embryos or fetuses or future generations. it's about women. controlling what women do with their bodies.

it is an inherently anti-woman policy because it in no way achieves the stated goal of preventing abortion and only impacts women's health in a negative way. it is detrimental to women. it is a policy borne of mistrust or hatred of women. all the stuff about loving babies is just smoke and mirrors at this particular junction in the abortion debate.What's interesting is that if you had said something along these lines in the first place (minus the smarmy interjections of course :rolleyes:), my reply would've been that I see your point. All I probably would've added is that Bush has also supported legislation that aims to remove condoms from the reach of teenage boys and that blocks stem cell research, so he seems to be a dumb-ass across the board on this to me, with the people being negatively affected ranging from horny teenagers, to women, to people suffering from Alzheimers or paralyzation, etc. But the point you make here is much clearer than what you gave me to read previously. I appreciate it....although I deeply regret that things had to build to the point they did before you finally posted this.

[dubman]

aaaaaand lock thread

[BeautifulBurnout]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
— Voltaire

ergo, thread unlocked.

People get heated about things in the World forum. That is the nature of the beast. It is a political forum. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people who agree with each other about 90% of the stuff in here find a point where they don't agree. Spats abound.

But we all respect each other, even if we don't share the same views. And locking a thread just because one has the powah to do so is more than a tad disrespectful not only to those with whom one disagrees, but to anyone who has expressed a point of view in the thread in question.

I can only remember one thread that has ever been locked in the 5 years I have been posting here, and a near-riot ensued. And rightly so, imo. We are adults. We are intelligent. We don't need to stomp on people just because arguments get heated. We all love each other really, no matter what.

Peace.

[IsiliRunite]

Two points:
-Bush MAY support abstaining from sex because he believes marriage is necessary to create families and to have children, because he believes morals and such are learnt from the family. Studies have shown that peer groups and neighbourhoods are more important to learning those life values
-The issue of birth control pills MAY not just be about "control" and ensuring only males have choices; condoms are going to remain legal because they prevent the spread of disease, while birth control does not. This is speculation... sorry if this has been said before, only had time to read cacophony's last past which seemed like a response to everything that was said before.

[Sean]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
— Voltaire

ergo, thread unlocked.

People get heated about things in the World forum. That is the nature of the beast. It is a political forum. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people who agree with each other about 90% of the stuff in here find a point where they don't agree. Spats abound.

But we all respect each other, even if we don't share the same views. And locking a thread just because one has the powah to do so is more than a tad disrespectful not only to those with whom one disagrees, but to anyone who has expressed a point of view in the thread in question.

I can only remember one thread that has ever been locked in the 5 years I have been posting here, and a near-riot ensued. And rightly so, imo. We are adults. We are intelligent. We don't need to stomp on people just because arguments get heated. We all love each other really, no matter what.

Peace.
Thanks Janie. Frankly I've said all I can say in the debate above, so I don't plan on posting about that particular aspect of the story any more, but it's surprisingly comforting knowing the thread's open again anyway.

-The issue of birth control pills MAY not just be about "control" and ensuring only males have choices; condoms are going to remain legal because they prevent the spread of disease, while birth control does not. This is speculation... sorry if this has been said before, only had time to read cacophony's last past which seemed like a response to everything that was said before.Here's more from the article about the specific birth control it goes after, which explains why it doesn't include things like condoms.

A copy of a memo that appears to be an HHS draft provided to Reuters, carries a broad definition of abortion.

"The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation,'" it said.

Conception occurs when egg and sperm unite in the fallopian tubes. It takes three to four days before the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Several birth control methods interfere with this, including the birth control pill and IUDs. (my highlights)

So it's apparently only birth control methods that take affect after the sperm has contacted the egg. Presumably because the second they make contact, for the religious right, the individual life has begun. So methods like condoms, or diaphragms, or the good old-fashioned rhythm method (:rolleyes:) are fine because they (sometimes) block the sperm and egg from ever meeting, thus no life.

It's a pretty extreme stretch that, frighteningly, sounds to me like a move designed to set up the boundaries for laws conservatives would put in place if they ever succeed in overturning Roe vs Wade. I mean, think about it. Would it be easier to redefine abortion to include these contraceptive methods now, while abortion's legal, or later, when it's illegal? While it's legal, less people may worry about how this redefinition would impact their rights. But if it were illegal already, then the impact on rights would be perceived by far more people as a clear and immediate threat. So that's my guess.

Luckily, this issue is receiving direct opposition already from congressional Democrats.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5397146&page=1

[Strangelet]

blah blah blah huffington post blah blah blah hillary clinton blah blah I respect her for it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

[stimpee]

ah self moderation. wonderful.

[Sean]

blah blah blah huffington post blah blah blah hillary clinton blah blah I respect her for it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.htmlAnd by the way, there's a link at the end of the piece that takes you to a petition you can sign opposing the re-categorizing of some birth control methods as abortion.

Cilck here to sign... (http://www.hillpac.com/action/hhspetition/)