Overruling a woman’s right to make decisions concerning her own body is not based on a reasonable awareness of fact, but on a theological and/or philosophical premise; to wit: a fetus is entitled to all the protections of a “human”. This usually takes the form of insisting that said fetus is a “child”.
As these presumptions are theological/philosophical in nature, if the law enforces this view, it is pretty much the same as establishing a church, as it forces citizens to accept a moral view that rightly belongs to their own conscience. Its not a “right to abortion” it is a right to choose.
Well, I will, but in all fairness I think offering that statement opposite the summary of the pro-life position I created above makes the pro-choice position seem to lack a certain specific rigor. But I am convinced by this exchange that “lump of tissue” IS a strawman, not generally endorsed by the real pro-choice side in any meaningful way, and again I apologize; I genuinely didn’t know. Now I do.
Ooh! Does this mean I get to call you a liar, now?
While I have mentioned that this thread is silly, I have in no way complained about its length, (except, possibly, in jocular way, although I do not recall even doing that), and I have on no occasion deplored that any poster who has participated–which would, of course, include me.
For someone who has resorted to frequent whining that I have “stalked” him (mostly in the context of my correcting his errors), you certainly seem to have little reticence to seek me out and take personal swipes when I am not even addressing you.
Seeing as you feel rigor-deprived, here’s an article I linked to in a current abortion thread. For those with any serious doubts about the depth of feeling and moral conviction underlying the abortion rights movement (and willing to open their minds), this (and many more sources available on and off the Internet) should be convincing.
Which won’t stop you from creating similar strawmen in the future, feigning shock at others “piling on” your attempts at stirring the pot, and racking up more “genuine” apologies to score points with the gullible.
Your shtick is getting to be as predictable as those of december or Reeder.
Having read that article, I would now attempt the following summary:
Pro-choice advocates tend to believe that the issue should be framed in terms of the pregnant woman’s health and her right to make - in consultation with her doctors - appropriate medical choices.
Jack, you’re being wayyyy too hostile, I think. First, Bricker’s summary of the pro-choice position pretty well captures my view, and the view of a substantial number of people: namely, that early abortions are such a simple ethical issue because there is only one set of rights to consider, those of the mother, the fetus not having any rights at all at that stage. While that’s not the view of every pro-choice person out there, it’s one he’s read about here from myself and others, and calling him dishonest for putting it forward is inappropriate.
Second,
is exactly the sort of nonsense that Bricker was rightly criticized for (and apologized for) in the OP. Snide predictions of poor behavior on the part of your political opponents is poor behavior.
Third, comparisons (which I’m now unable to find, but which I know I saw in this thread) between Bricker and december are off-base. december was a twit who did not listen to his opponents’ arguments, who delighted in twisting what people said, and who never ever conceded a point. Bricker has views that I find really objectionable, but he listens to what folks say, he makes an effort to respond to folks’ real (not twisted) arguments, and he concedes points where necessary.
So your position, when hearing a person stating that the fetus is a human being deserving of protection, is to respond that “it’s just a mass of tissue”? Is that a fair characterization of your views, and one likely to stimulate respectful debate?
I think you are missing the point. It would have been similar to Bricker’s behavior had I attempted to smear conservatives in general by suggesting that many would act poorly in the future. On the other hand, in this specific case it is reasonable to be highly skeptical of Bricker’s sanctimoniously stated good intentions when he has at least twice in this one thread alone posted false and inflammatory generalizations about his opponents’ views, and has a posting history replete with weaseling and attempts to inflame rather than rationally debate (I’m thinking in particular of the William Bennett and "Nyah Nyah Bush Was Re-Elected threads, but there are others).
I don’t think Bricker’s opinions are particularly exceptional or objectionable, it’s just the smug and unctuous hypocrisy that gets a bit much. Maybe he will think twice before posting inflammatory drivel in the future. History suggests otherwise. No big deal.
I have been known to call feti (fetuses?) in the first trimester “lumps of tissue.” I’ve also been known to call the Republican leadership “lumps of tissue,” but I live in Henry Hyde’s district and work in Dennis Hastert’s and have you ever SEEN those guys?
By the way, since when could threads go on indefinitely? Back in the day Tom could close down one that had veered as far as this one from the OP under the pretext that the hamsters couldn’t handle threads longer than four or five pages but now they keep going and going.
I was willing to accede to your …um… harshly phrased correction, even though I KNOW that I have heard pro-choice people on this board offer that precise phrase, more than once.
Now Daniel comes along and confirms that, at least in his mind, my summary was not particularly unfair or hateful.
While I don’t have any problems with the idea that the pro-choice movement is not in monolithically ideological lock-step – in other words, I readily accept that different people may reach the end result of being pro-choice through different paths – I don’t believe that there can be, among pro-choice people, such substantial disagreement as to whether the summary I presented is dramatically and offensively off base.
I’m willing to accept that it was. I’m willing to accept that it wasn’t. I’m not yet willing to accept that the very question of whether it was or it wasn’t is ITSELF unanswerable by reasonable people of good faith.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve referred to a blasocyst or an embryo as a “lump of tissue”, or something similar. From a scientific standpoint, they are. However, it would be highly unscientific to call a fetus, especially a viable one, a “lump of tissue”. And since most abortions in the US are performed in the first 2 months of pregnancy, it would seem that most abortions were performed on what I’d call “lumps of tissue”. (8 or 9 weeks is the usual dividing point between a human embryo and a human fetus.)
Um, yes? I’m not sure what you see as so terrible about that view. I believe that rights ought to be accorded to entities according to their ability to appreciate them, and not according to their genetic makeup; as such, I don’t believe rights ought to be accorded to something, though it be composed of human tissue (and therefore be a “mass of tissue”), that cannot appreciate them. (This is something of an oversimplification, and ignores such cases as the comatose, but I don’t want to get into a full explanation of that at this point). I have no trouble at all with characterizing my position as such.
No, I think YOU are missing the point. If Bricker had called me out specifically and named me as someone who would give the artist a pass because she was attacking Bush, I’d be more, not less, pissed. Your citing of the “Nyah Nyah” thread from two freakin’ years ago ignores that Bricker, IIRC, apologized for it. You’ve got a harsh on for him that I think is uncalled for.
I see. In spite of the fact that 1) no one among the leaders in the abortion rights movement (I previously cited multiple organizations and various influential figures) uses such dismissive and counterproductive phraseology, and 2) there has been evidence presented that “mass/lump of tissue” is a buzzword popular among segments of the anti-abortion rights community, you’ve decided on the basis of statements by a few Dopers that it’s proper to generalize this language to the pro-abortion rights community as a whole.
As I said before - you can cherry-pick whatever phrase you want to categorize your opponents. You’ll have to decide whether that fits in with your stated intent to take the high road.
Have you taken a good look at the deep divisions among people with your own basic point of view, as to acceptable tactics and language? Do you see uniformity there?
I can’t help it if some folks on my side of the issue, while likely well-intentioned, are so tone deaf to the effect their language will have, particularly on the undecided. God knows there are plenty on the anti-abortion rights side of the fence as well.
Yes, he does that a lot.
I know it is part of the SDMB culture to appreciate and praise posters who admit error and apologize (its relative rarity probably has something to do with this). I certainly could stand some improvement when it comes to acknowledging mistakes. One might ask, though, whether it is better to keep pulling the same offensive stunts and then (maybe) apologizing, or whether it would be a good idea to avoid the repeated necessity for apologizing in the first place.
You know, if the group with whom you associate has failed to actually present a unified presentation, it is hardly fair to claim that one’s opponent has been “cherry-picking.” Given that we have four separate references, above, to “tissue” both from this board and from outside references, your insistence that Bricker set out to deliberately mischaracterize his opposition rings pretty hollow.
Your insistence that you need to beat him into submission even when he has offered an apology, asked for a better presentation, and declared his intent to follow the presentation you prefer begins to make your posts look a bit like a personal problem–and not Bricker’s problem.
On the contrary, I haven’t decided that it’s proper. I am suggesting that the issue is not settled. Daniel, a poster I respect tremendous, and one who carries a reputation for being a logical, level-headed exemplar of certain liberal positions, has taken a position contrary to yours. Based on that, at the very least, I regard the issue as unsettled, assuming I accord equal weight to your view. I have no particular reason to dismiss Daniel out of hand and regard you as the authority on the issue.
I believe, as tomndebb observes, that it’s inconsistent for you to say both things you did above. You can hardly accuse me of “cherry-picking” - disingenuously choosing unrepresentative samples - and then acknowledge that there is substantial disagreement on the issue actually out there.
So… “she does get a pass here” post was a fair and reasonable interpretation of the first 89 posts in this thread? His defense of his OP as not intended to goad his political opponents seems to be the opposite of backing down from wrong-headed statements.
That having been said, I have agreed the comparison is not fair, at the moment. If tomorrow brings another thread like this one I may change my mind.
Um, not that this changes the essence of the exchange here, but I’d like to point out that this quote from me, referenced by Bricker, was in a thread where I was defending a pro-life position (as I always do). I was comparing a fetus to someone who had momentarily lost brain activity, only to recover it. My point being, of course, that if a fetus is merely a “blob of tissue” by virtue of the absence of sentience, then so is this adult. This clever, clever analogy is one I’ve bored others with many times on this board.
So, I’ll close by saying, (1) that I have heard fetuses referred to as “blobs of tissue” (or something similar) too may times on this board to count. And I’ve been in a lot of abortion threads. (2) That’s certainly not the only pro-choice argument. And (3) I am greatly amused to see myself used as a pro-choice reference. Sorry, just couldn’t let it pass.
It’s hard to believe you (or Tom) could have such difficult understanding the issue in question.
An example which may enlighten you: there are “pro-lifers” who speak freely of their opponents as murderers, who advocate aggressive tactics including stalking the families of abortion providers, putting up “hit lists” on websites and even committing bombings and shootings against personnel at abortion clinics. Do I think it’s fair to cite them as though they were typical of anti-abortion rights advocates?
No. From what I can tell, the majority of anti-abortion rights advocates deplore violent tactics and I can recognize widespread thoughtful, principled opposition to abortion that does not attempt to rain fire and brimstone (literally or figuratively) on their opponents. Attempting to paint the violent in word and/or deed as typical of their movement would be wrong. Sarahfeena thought that a hypothetical comparison made earlier in this thread that did not even reference the most violent aspects of extreme anti-abortion rights activism was unfair. And I agree with her (though she didn’t explain how it was unfair while at the same time your stereotype was somehow fair.
For the last time - you can play these games if you want. Few will respect you for it. And unless you can find Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., N.A.R.A.L., pro-abortion rights lawmakers, writers, commentators and other leaders in the movement making contemptuous references to “it’s only a mass of tissue” as a summary of their position supporting abortion rights, stop pretending it’s an accepted view, based only on a handful of statements from dolts on this board. It’s not just me (and others in this thread) who find this pretense idiotic and unacceptable.
You know better. You don’t appreciate it when an anti-Bush ranter tries to paint conservatives with offensive and inaccurate stereotypes. By doing this sort of thing yourself, you relinquish any claim to the moral high ground.*
Now I’m starting to sound like Pjen. That’s it - I’m outta here.
