GWB hates women

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 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"

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.

Originally Posted by dubman

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

How about "full sentences"?

that's for 4th grade tests.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

Originally Posted by cacophony

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...

Originally Posted by cacophony

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by dubman

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

No....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.

Originally Posted by dubman

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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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....

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

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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?