Heh heh heh. My bad.
(b), particularly the third question in para (b).
So you’re asking me to evaluate this post:
And see if I think your summation is reasonable:
Well, I don’t know DragonAsh from Adam, I have barely ready any of the Martin/Zimmerman stuff, I have not been following the thread, I’m generally hesitant to attempt to interpret or speak for other dopers, and I have no idea what the point of this exercise is. But, I’m curious where this is going, so I’ll play along…
Taking the original quote line by line:
Obviously true
Clearly an anti-gun sentiment, but note that he says “sorry dude, you absolutely should end up in COURT” as opposed to “in JAIL”. Zimmerman did, in fact, end in up court. I don’t see many people holding the position that Zimmerman was so obviously blameless that he shouldn’t have even gone on TRIAL.
This is the money quote, I think. I’ll come back to it later.
Disagreeing with the law as written and saying the prosecution is incompetent, both reasonable positions.
Basically seems to be saying “he’s such a jerk that if he was in jail for a while before trial, serves him right”, seems emotional but reasonable, as long as he’s not endorsing some “gee, it would be a shame if we lost his case docket and he had to spend 7 extra years in jail before the trial started, wink wink” type of abuse of power.
So the only part of the quote that really seems to be similar to the position you were ascribing to him is this:
And again, he’s talking about him being guilty of some “charge”. IE, some law. DragonAsh’s position seems to be that he believes that (whether or not the court finds this) Zimmerman broke some law in the reckless homicide/manslaughter category, and deserves to be punished for it.
Which seems like a reasonable position to take.
I don’t see any vigilanteism, any “I don’t care what the court finds, he should go to jail” any “I know more than the jury”, etc. So, no, I don’t think your analysis holds up at all. It’s also very important to note that people ranting on the SDMB about things are NOT necessarily carefully metering their words in some “what I say here is actually the world view I really think should be imposed on everyone” sense. I can well imagine someone saying “that guy is a criminal and deserves to die” and you responding with “wait, you’re saying he IS a criminal? So you think that your word is enough to condemn someone? And you think he deserves to die? What about due process? Won’t someone think of the children and lawyers!!!” when in fact, if you pressed the person at all, they’d of course say that they in fact have great respect for the rule of law and were just speaking informally about a topic they’re passionate about. (I mean, they’d first call you a jerk for so blatantly and facilely misinterpreting what was clearly not intended to be a serious claim about how they desire the world to work, and they would be right.)
Anyhow, what all does that have to do with abortion and ultrasounds?
I’ll hazard a guess of “Nothing, but somebody somewhere is happy to ignore the law and by implication, the people arguing against me are also doing it, since I’m by definition correct about the law.”
Or something along those lines. Essentially a liberal is wrong about something somewhere, therefore all liberals are wrong about everything everywhere.
Personally, I haven’t been following the Zimmerman/Martin case.
I’m seeing more classic Bricker, along the lines of “My opponents are so utterly and blindly biased against the clear truth I present, their very refusal validates my position, and I win.”
Possibly. Of course, he’s admitted that he’s okay (well, maybe tragically conflicted, but overall okay) with arbitrary and punitive abuses of law to get a result he wants.
Offhand I’m trying to think of a comparable example where I’d do the same, but I tend to fall back on abuses in the sense of cops looking the other way on victimless crimes, i.e. selective application toward non-enforcement, rather than selective legislation toward moral/social engineering.
Yes, that was pretty surprising, usually he is coy about such admissions, usually leaves himself a trapdoor to a hidey-hole.
Like when we were arguing voter suppression/ID laws, he accepts that some Republicans have cynical motivations, but won’t hazard a guess as to how many. And yes, “voter fraud” is bullshit, but these laws will prevent the voter fraud that *doesn’t *happen as effectively as it prevents the voter fraud that *could *happen, but doesn’t.
He then waits graciously for the kudos and applause for his honesty, and if none is forthcoming, provides them There is only one Bricker, and this, in itself, provides some small evidence for a just and loving Diety. Or if not loving, at least merciful.
Heck, sometime ask OMG a Black Conservative if individuals should only be allowed to do what the government permits.
Evidently nothing. My mistake. I took away a different read from that post, but I’m inclined to credit your analysis over my own.
Didn’t get traction, huh?
Bricker, some questions.
- First, a philosophical one: do you believe forcing people to take a moral action has an equivalent effect on their psyche and/or soul as the force of their choosing to take it? In other words, should we legislate morality?
- Do you think you’re more capable or less capable of determining a course of treatment than a medical doctor?
- Do you think a specialist in a field of medicine is more capable or less capable of determining a course of treatment than someone who is not a specialist?
- Do you believe legislating against an activity is more likely or less likely to prevent that activity?
- As an addendum to that one: do you have proof one way or the other?
- If you believe the life of the mother is of at least somewhat greater importance to that of the unborn child, do you believe psychological damage is as acceptable a reason as physical damage for termination?
And, as extra credit:
A 21 year old Army linguist at Fort Bliss is married and pregnant. The pregnancy is surprising because she should have an IUD, but an examination determines that it became detached and is free-floating in the uterus. This has a strong chance of causing a miscarriage and of perforating the uterus, causing lifelong infertility and internal hemorrhaging. Having a child will affect the linguist’s promotion chances and career options. She’d like to have a child eventually, but this might not be the best time – more than that, this has become a very high-risk pregnancy. Also problematic is the fact that she’s at Fort Bliss, and the closest in-state abortion doctor is six hundred miles away.
Which reason or reasons are acceptable for termination?
- Timing
- Promotion chances
- Risk of miscarriage
- Risk of infertility
- Risk of internal hemorrhaging
At which point is it acceptable to terminate the pregnancy?
- Immediately upon discovery
- Upon a doctor’s say-so
- When complications begin
- If the woman begins to miscarry
- When death from those complications is imminent
Does she have access to ultrasound equipment?
Sure.
Then everything’s a-ok.
Again, specifically, why not?
Do you think there is an aspect that make us ‘us’ other than the physical brain?
Or are you referring to humans in a persistent vegetative state who’s brain has broken down or ceased to function?
The relationship a pregnant woman has with an unwanted fetus is more akin to that between strangers than a parental relationship. Forced gestation forces her into a physically intimate relationship that she does not want. To gestate is to be engaged in a physical intimacy of deep proportions, far beyond that of organ donation.
To be pregnant is to be* inhabited*. It is to be* occupied*. It is to be in a state of physical intimacy of a particularly thorough-going nature. The fetus intrudes on the body massively; whatever medical risks one faces or avoids, the fact remains that the fetus shifts, alters and expands the very physical boundaries of the woman’s body. To mandate continuation of gestation is, quite simply, to force continuation of such occupation. To mandate that the woman remain pregnant is to mandate that she remain in a state of physical intertwinement against her consent. That in and of itself is a violation of body autonomy of epic proportions.
Parental rights and guardianship are assumed at birth, not necessarily mandated. A maternal or paternal progenitor does not automatically confer a parental relationship despite the biological connection. The duties and obligations of parenthood are more a social role and legal responsibility, rather than a function of biology. Men who do not wish to become a parent are not forced to, despite their paternal genetic relationship. They may be mandated to provide financially for their unwanted offspring, but that’s it. A wage garnishment. They are not forced to enter into a parental relationship - to act as legal guardian responsible for the child’s welfare. They are not even mandated to ever actually be in any physical proximity to the child, to even know it’s name or birthday. Any of that is purely voluntary.
Biological parents who do assert their parent rights and responsibilities at birth are not mandated to share their bodies with their minor children, even if their child’s welfare depends on it. Why some may think parents should have a moral duty to donate a kidney to their child who needs one in order to survive, they have never been mandated to by the state, it remains voluntary. Who has the more compelling moral duty: a sperm or ovum donor or a man or woman that has assumed the social role of motherhood/fatherhood and has a lived relationship with the child? The duty to one’s child turns more on social familial roles than simple genetic connection.
Thousands of fertilized eggs discarded after IVF are humanely euthanized every year when they are defrosted or donated to medical research by their so called “parents”. And these “parents” explicitly consented to the creations of these embryos because they actually wanted to become parents! Indeed, the fertility industry is pretty much allowed to operate with little restriction. Even after the Nadia Suleman aka ‘OctoMom’ debacle, there has been no legislative attempts to limit the number of embryos created or mandate that each embryo must be implanted. It seems that the concern over the “unborn” is simply a matter of geography. When these embryos are located in a petri dish - no big deal, but once a fertilized egg resides in the body of woman some would dictate she can’t even be allowed to defend herself from implantation in her body! Nope, some would go as far to dictate what medications a woman can take in order to ensure her uterine lining always remain ‘hospitable’. Even if she herself is adamantly NOT hospitable, her body must be against her will.
If claiming that abortion turns men gay isn’t the height of stupidity, I don’t know what is.
I’m thinking that the places that offer “free” ultrasounds will be pro-life clinics such as BirthRight and that any woman who’s tricked into going there will be subjected to the full blown pro-life scree. I’m also doubtful that they will give the results of the free ultrasound to the woman should she decide to proceed..
Well, when two right-to-lifers claim they know that a pregnant, comatose woman whom they have never seen before would not want an abortion, as opposed to her husband and parents, who claim she would, it got really ridiculous
Well, it ain’t the soul. If it ain’t the brain either, what does that leave?
That would be an excellent example of, “OK, thanks, now stop helping, please.”
When the folks are nominally “your side” say stupid crap like the quote above, it’s disheartening.
I have laid out what I believe to be a defensible position against most abortion. Then something like this comes along.