He said it right there in your link: “I’m in favor of abortion whenever and wherever the pregnant woman wants it and/or the treating physician deems it medically necessary”
The “or” implies that the woman’s consent is not needed if the doctor thinks it’s necessary.
I have to say, if you’re coming here for approval and affirmation, it’s just not the spot. 
I think most of us come here for intellectual debate and discussion. At least, that’s my purpose, so we have to accept that debate will be forthcoming.
That said, personal judgements and attacks in a debate are just, well, boring, and add nothing to the discussion. I generally just explain myself once if there’s room to believe I’ve been misunderstood, and then state my refusal to join in further self-defence.
My point I’ll defend, my self is in fairly good shape thanks, and not in need of rehashing for anyone else’s enjoyment!
hth
I think the world suffers from a bit of Limbaughitous – lots of overgeneralizations, hyperbole, and us v. them mentality. It’s not limited to this board at all. In fact, I daresay that when it comes to disagreements --especially emotionally charged disagreements-- this board is far better than most places on the net.
In addition, I think it is extraordinarily important to flesh out BG’s post and its context. The essence of the pitted statement: "which is exactly the position of all good and decent people” was in response to, and fairly mimicking of, earlier posts by Carol Stream that were somewhat taunting and churlish in nature. I may not have the best description (e.g., perhaps it wasn’t mimicking per se), and I’m not trying to weigh in on the particulars of BG’s position and whatnot. However, since not everyone would have read that thread, the impression that s/he just randomly hurled out such a comment doesn’t do the context justice.
I think you mean Limbaughitis, which would be inflammation of the Limbaugh.
You want Limbaughiasis - the presence of or increase in Limbaugh.
It’s a truly horrific condition.
You are right. I never would have thought to interpret it that way. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assumed he meant that a woman and her doctor could make the decision together, which makes sense to me.
Of course not, I’m not that foolish. 
The question in my subject header was trying to make a point about judging people based on one issue, not to sway people on the abortion issue or to try to get people to reassure me that I’m right.
Well, in a way, BG made his point. He showed how stupid the other side was, by doing exactly what they did: demonizing an opponent based on their position on one issue, as the anti-Obama protestors did with regard to his stance on abortion.
I doubt he meant to do that, but it’s undeniably effective.
No doubt it’s effective, but if he didn’t mean to do it, then how is my interpretation of his statement wrong?
Of course you are. I, on the other hand,…
No kidding.
You are dealing with a lot of extremists here, and more than that, with extremists who think of themselves as moderate. Their positions are obviously and unassailably right, and therefore anyone who deviates from the group-think even slightly has to be doing so out of malice. BrainGlutton does it, tomndebb does it, Der Trihs does it, most of the Usual Suspects do it as their stock in trade.
Abortion is a particularly egregious example of this. If you don’t immediately assent - hell, if you even hesitate or think - from the position that an abortion is always a good idea, and is of no more moral consequence than an enema, it is because you hate all women and want to reduce them to brood sows. Because it is so obvious that no person could possibly argue any other position in good faith.
I think they do it often as a way of shutting themselves off from the difficulties of changing their minds. If I can convince myself that you are a Bad Person, then that excuses me from listening to you. ANd so I can dismiss your arguments without bothering myself with finding out what they are.
It’s too bad, in many ways, unless (as I do) you get a certain amount of chuckles out of watching your opponents make fools of themselves.
Don’t let them drag you down. It’s an ad hominem, and an example of poisoning the well. If they have to resort to logical fallacies, then they have lost the debate.
And I suspect, on some level, they know it. If not, well, put him on your ignore list, or PALATR.
Regards.
Sjpdam
I was agreeing with you.
Hint: that’s not why people dismiss your arguments.
That would make sense to me as well, but having to get physician approval before getting an abortion isn’t really a pro-choice position either.
Sorry. :smack:
BTW, I should add that I don’t necessarily expect everyone in the world to believe me to be a good and decent person. I personally think I could do better, although I’m probably not any worse than most people. I was using myself as a metaphor for all the people BrainGlutton might have painted with his broad brush.
Shodan needs one too, apparently, so why don’t the two of you work that out?
Hmm, so he’s making provactive comments supporting positions he doesn’t actually espouse in order to get a reaction? What’s that called again?
Now that I think about it, I have no idea what he meant by that. I suspect he may be saying that if the physician determines that neither the foetus nor the mother will survive childbirth, but the mother could survive if the foetus is aborted, the physician should be able to override her will. I don’t know if that’s the case, though (or if I agree with that).
It depends on your perspective. When the person agrees with you it’s called “a legitimate debate tactic” and when they disagree it’s called “trolling”.
I’m not saying he doesn’t believe it. I’m saying I don’t think he did, but my suspicion is hardly enough to accuse him of trolling.
He hasn’t offered any, while you did. Besides, I thought that was what you liberal types were good at…hugs.
BG is a lot of things, but I don’t think troll is one of them. I don’t think he was trolling with that sentence…I think it was simply poorly written. Maybe he’ll wander in to clarify.
-XT
Seconded.
Thirded.
Carved in stone and dropped on a few toes (not my own) to make a point.
But on certain issues, you can pretty much figure out that they’re a horrible person.
If they support torture.
If they support genocide.
If they are Klansmen.
If they are Nazis.
If they are Communists.
The torture debates have uncovered a few people that I will never listen to again, because they have revealed themselves to be moral lepers.
Sarahfeena – I certainly believe you are. Sadly, Dio and BG tend to completely black and white viewpoints. I would just ignore their bullshit. While I may differ with you on a lot of political views, I highly value your opinion over theirs’.
ETA: never mind, I misunderstood something.
Let’s remember, too, that the abortion subject and the personal affiliation some board personnel have for a side in it caused the huge mod meltdown a few months back and the imposition of the Pit rules.
Not the finest moment this place ever saw, and the only thing that redeemed that whole mess for me was that a lot of pro-choice posters were able to see the basic unfairness of the treatment and protest it.
Really? I must have missed that entire episode of board drama.
-XT