GWB hates women

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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]

Originally Posted by dubman

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

Oh, 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]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.