moderators editing members posts

[Sean]

So this debate has gone everywhere, lost the point, found it, beat the crap out of it, nursed it back to health, and then started all over again. In the simple interest of clarity, I just want to post what I guess could be considered my closing arguments on the subject. I'm not going anywhere, or refusing to reply to any new points that may arise, but for where things are as of now, I just want to make sure my stance is accurately understood.

My overall point is not who's right or wrong, it's simply meant to address whether or not I think the charge that "GWB hates women" is a logical enough conclusion to warrant it's assertion as fact. For all we know, Cacophony and Dubman are right, and he does hate women - but does this story provide clear evidence of it? That's what I question, and I don't personally think it does.

First and foremost, the issue at hand is that Bush presented a "memo that defines several widely used contraception methods as abortion and protects the right of medical providers to refuse to offer them."

The contraception methods at issue are specifically ones that take affect after the sperm and the egg have combined, which is why things like condoms and other methods that simply block sperm and egg from ever meeting are not included in this new definition of abortion. I believe it logically follows that the most likely reason for this would be the pro-life stance that individual life begins at the moment of conception. Again, I feel this is the most likely reason, not necessarily the hands-down correct one. Nor do I think that the "sanctity of life" argument is the only one that motivates pro-lifers, but it is the foundation of their stance, and the aspect of it that most directly applies to this particular issue.

Why do I consider this to be the "most likely" reason? Because this issue is most directly linked to all of Bush's overall philosophies on reproductive functions and the morality of what we do with them. Considering this, we can look at other issues that are directly affected by these philosophies to find any common threads.

The first two that pop to mind for me are stem cell research and partial birth abortions. Stem cell research could lead to cures of diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or injuries like paralysis. But Bush's flawed reasoning that stem cell research reduces the potential human life of an embryo to nothing more than basically a lab rat took precedence over the suffering people that stem cell research would surely help. In the case of partial birth abortions, for Bush, the life of the unborn baby takes enough precedence over other considerations that he won't even allow for mothers to have the option of saving their own lives by terminating the pregnancy if that's a real choice they're facing. In both cases, as well as in the case of redefining abortion that started these discussions, the common thread is that for Bush, all other considerations are trumped by the philosophy that the life of an unborn child must be protected at all costs. That's what, to me, makes it the most likely logical reason for his stance...it's clear presence in all reproductive-related issues he's addressed.

If we similarly evaluate the stance that "GWB hates women" as a conclusion reached directly through the evidence we have, it simply comes out as less likely to be the reasoning behind the memo. We do see some common traits between how the redefining of abortion and partial birth abortions both negatively affect women, but it's certainly not a common thread that runs through Bush's stance on all things reproductive, like stem cell research and the like. So if we take a purely Occum's Razor style approach to the subject, then the conclusion that Bush's stance on this means that he "hates women" simply doesn't pass the test. The simplest explanation is that he values fetus life over all else, regardless of how debatable the subject of when life begins actually is, and regardless of who else is hurt in the process.

To me, Bush's stance shows disdain for many things - reason, indisputable human life and suffering, science, realistic consequences, etc. But I don't see a specific, focused intent on women that would qualify the assertion of "misogyny". There is no consistent trail of legislation or publicly known philosophies from Bush that show the common thread of specifically "hating women" that would need to be there to justify such a focused charge. At best, it's a guess based largely on assumptions. And frankly, I think that viewing this as an example of Bush's overall flawed thinking on the subject to be far worse than the limited, focused charge of misogyny. On that, I'm surprised to be meeting with such staunch resistance.

And as I've said before, if this story is accepted as evidence enough to establish Bush's misogyny, then we must also accept a myriad of other conclusions about him that are based on equally compelling evidence. That would mean that we must accept that Bush hates people with diseases and conditions that could be cured through stem cell research. And that he must hate Iraqi people. And that he must hate blacks as evidenced by hurricane Katrina. And that he must hate gay people since he opposes same sex marriage. And that he must hate Iranians because he supports sanctions against Iran. And that he must hate teenagers because he opposes making condoms available to high school students. While these are all certainly people who have been negatively affected by Bush's misguided policies, I don't personally feel that concluding he must hate them all is accurate or fair.

And to fortify the point, we must also, by extension, then apply the same reasoning to other stances. Like that, again, pro-choice people must hate babies. Or that anti-gun people must hate all hunters. Or that death penalty opponents must hate the families of some murder victims. Or that supporters of affirmative action must hate white people. Clearly, some of these examples are more ludicrous than others, but all rely on exactly the same logic that is required to justify the assertion that "GWB hates women".

So that's it. I think that clarifies exactly where I stand on it. Agree, disagree, get pissed, yell at me, call me stupid, whatever. I'm happy to continue the discussion about it, but probably won't engage in any debates that would simply require me to reiterate these points over and over again.