I apologize, sincerely. I quite honestly thought that that WAS a fair summary of the main view of the abortion rights side, and it seems to me I’ve heard it a bit here - two quick cites:
But educate me – is that NOT a tenent of the abortion-rights side? What would be a fair summary for me to use in the future?
That’s what I mean by word choice. You could just as easily say “liberals protest”, or “liberals complain”. If you decide on “liberals whine” you are clearly ramping up past debate to attack, the use of the cliche is deliberately offensive.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that using such phrasing is an indication of dishonest debate in general, or only in that particular instance (although Bricker noted earlier that the word “whine” did not appear in his OP at all)?
“Tenet”, no N. Just like the Presidential Medal of Freedom winning CIA director.
Educating you would have to start with you realizing that there is NOT a single view differing from yours that can be quickly summarized. It is possibly the greatest disease modern political discourse suffers, that any and all issues are often cast in black/white, us/them, good/evil terms such as reflected by the mindset you show in even asking the question. There are, in fact, as many views on the subject of abortion as there are people who have them. You cannot wrap them up in summary at all, much less a “fair” one. There would not seem to be any good reason to try any further steps until you grasp that one.
I apologize, sincerely. I quite honestly thought that that WAS a fair summary of the main view of the abortion rights side, and it seems to me I’ve heard it a bit here - two quick cites:
But educate me – is that NOT a tenent of the abortion-rights side? What would be a fair summary for me to use in the future?
Now that double-post was weird.
But by this logic, there’s no point in anyone debating anything with anyone, at least, not in a more-than-two-person setting like the SDMB. Certainly, people who come to a common conclusion are in no way guaranteed to have to come to it for the same reasons, but (a) the fact that they’ve come to the same conclusion is at least evidence that they are LIKELY to share some other, underlying, beliefs and/or values, and (b) it’s frequently logically possible to draw generally-sound conclusions about their other beliefs based on the belief they have in common. None of these may be 100% accurate, but you have to start with SOMETHING, or else every discussion will be like this:
A: I believe abortion should be legal
B: OK, please spend 8 months typing 8 hours a day explaining every single thing you believe about everything, so that I may tailor my side of this debate specifically for you, and not make the (gasp) generalization of assuming that I know anything about you and your beliefs at all.
If someone who is basically an intelligent and aware person says that they support the war in Iraq, I will assume that it’s because they believe that we will end up improving the situation in Iraq and the ME in general, and that long term good will outweigh the past, ongoing and future cost in terms of money, lives, and international goodwill. It’s possible that they instead support the war for some weird other corner-case of a reason, such as, to make something up, they believe that the US is better off fighting wars, because it toughens us up in some collective-macho fashion; or they believe that there are extraterrestrials who live in Iraq who will be killed during the war before they can spawn and take over the world; or because the revelation they received directly from God tells them we should be in Iraq. If I’m arguing with a pro-war guy and they explain that THAT is why they support the war, I will happily adjust my argument accordingly. But I won’t be scolded by them for having made unfair gross assumptions when I started out assuming they supported the war for, basically, the normal reasons.
Cherry-pick whatever phrase you think helps your cause. Would you want to engage in respectful debate with an abortion rights supporter who said:
"I respect a woman’s right to choose and to have control over her body. But I recognize that not everyone shares this view. Others believe their religion compels them to regard all abortion as murder and that an embryo’s rights trump those of the woman carrying it. Reasoning from that, they conclude that virtually any act is justifiable if it prevents the woman having an abortion.
While I work to convince them otherwise, I don’t call them evil."
You can find anti-abortion rights advocates who think this way. Is it reasonable to summarize the entire movement in this fashion? Do you think that is likely to lead to rational debate?
Disingenuousness, thy name is Bricker.
The hell? The more thoughtful views you encounter and consider, the better off you are. Is your idea of debate simply the trading of conclusions, not the reasoning that led to them? Do you *really * settle for *assuming * the basis others have for reaching their views? You don’t learn much that way, sorry.
My objection to Bricker’s question isn’t to the question but to the binary-only mindset that generated it. He’s looking for a quick, bordered, easily -summarized and therefore easily-attacked and easily-dismissed position that he can tell himself that “the other side” all shares - that is what is generally known as a strawman.
(Waiting for tomndebb to add yet *another * post complaining about how long and silly this thread is, and deploring those who continue to add to it).
I think you are being unfair. Abortion-rights advocates call the fetus a “lump of tissue” quite frequently…I have debated this point of view on this board many times. AND, he never said that ALL abortion-rights advocates have this veiw. He said that he has one view, and “others” have this “lump of tissue” view. I did not get the impression that he intended everyone in the universe to fall into one of these two views.
Wasn’t specificly referring to Bricker, neither in general nor in particular. That is given as an example only, of a word usage that has clear insult potential. There are many others, to be sure, but why go on and on unpleasantly, when a single example will do?
I have to assume something at some point. I mean, to take it to slightly hilarious extremes, I assume you’re a human being, which gives me various assumptions about your capabilities, your basic moral framework, etc. The thing I object to is “there are as many views about abortion as there are people having abortions”, which, while perhaps technically true, doesn’t help foster meaningful interaction and debate. Probably no one else on the board has exactly 100% precisely the same opinion about any meaningfully complex topic as anyone else on the board, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t “sides” to debates, in which people’s beliefs are at least close enough together that they can share arguments pro and con.
As long as Bricker doesn’t use words like “all” and “every” and “only”, I have no problem with him making generalizations, and I don’t see “simply a mass of tissue” as being a particularly unfair or inaccurate twisting of what is a commonly espoused pro-choice viewpoint.
I asked, quite politely and sincerely, what would be a fair summary for me to use in the future? I assured you, again sincerely, that I thought what I was saying was a fair summary, but was absolutely willing to be educated.
And rather than lash out at you for the response above, I will again apologize for my inaccurate summary and again ask what a fair summary of the pro-abortion-rights position I could use in the future.
I do not find that to be the case, either on these boards or in positions taken by pro-abortion rights politicians, commentators, or organizations such as N.O.W., N.A.R.A.L. or Planned Parenthood. Most have thoughtful, morally-based positions that do not encompass such language or thinking.
But I suppose we have a tendency to hear what we want to.
How so?
Now you could accuse my hypothetical abortion rights supporter of being unfair. But then you might have to rethink your casual use of the “lump of tissue” phrase to characterize “others” who think differently from you.
Nor do I.
“Pro-abortionists believe that in at least some cases abortion can be the better choice”. I apologise for the vagueness, but adding more detail would leave some views (held by non-trivial amounts of people) out.
Or me. I’ve seen it used pretty often on the boards. I have no problem with using generalisations as long as it’s agreed that it’s a generalisation.
Heaven forfend.
Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America put it this way (I would phrase it somewhat differently and with greater specificity, but this is a fair summary of what abortion-rights activists in general believe):
“If you’re like me, you believe in a culture of freedom and responsibility. You believe that women have the intelligence and thoughtfulness to make decisions about their health with their families, their physicians, and their faith. You believe that government and politicians should not interfere in our personal lives – and that people should be empowered to make the right decisions for themselves.”
I’m sure you will use this summary to categorize your opponents’ beliefs on abortion in the future, as you are above all petty mischaracterizations and deceptions, and always striving for self-improvement. Bravo, I say.*
Keerist, I’m starting to sound like elucidator. :eek:
More generally, if you search the internets using Google for “lump of tissue” abortion, you’ll get less than 700 total hits; the top 10 of which are all for ‘pro-life’ sites.
‘Lump of tissue’ is a propaganda term like ‘death tax’, ‘homocide bomber’ or ‘freedom fries’.