Questioning Abortion as an advance towards freedom

[CirclesAndDots]

This argument persists because there is no satisfying, colloquial definition of life or rather there is no satisfying fact of modern science that declares the threshold of human identity. It is a dangerous intersection between ancient philosophies and modern medical practices. It is a debate however that rejuvenates my perspective of conservative ideology, not because I agree with them but because there are flashes, here and there, of sanity and better than sanity--compassion. After their busied attempts to demonize the poor, their perverted and inverted romanticism with the rich, after their eager defenses of war, war with man of a different color, war with man of a different God, war with the world and its resources, it is refreshing to see a strain of fight for equality. (or the idea of equality) That is essentially the form that can be drawn from the combat. Those left of center evoke the rights of the woman, the obligate biological vessel, something demonstrably human. The right evokes, I think, not so much a product or a physicality but a process, the integrity of creation. Their policies are indicative of their disregard for the product. To quote the late George Carlin: "Conservatives will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own"--I don't intend for this quote to substitute a substantive social diagnosis but it grabs at a discrepancy in conservative idealism and conservative policy.

 

This year the debate coincides with some peculiar imagery. Aluminum 'hands' on mars frisk the planet for signs of life. A splash of methane and a clump of cellular material would excite the imagination of science for a long time. Meanwhile a hose in a New Jersey clinic slithers into a woman and sucks up a clump of cellular material a billion years in the making. Doc will do this three times before lunch.

My aim here is not to flare up emotion because a similarly bleak description could be equally produced had the woman chose "life"; rather it is to bring into viewing a callous, distracting and flawed argument employed here by some users (though I identify with them consistently) and it is this: At what point are rights "activated"? This angle should be abandoned entirely. Where it isn't chauvinistic, it is hypocritical, where it isn't boldly philosophical it is scientifically unjustified. It's also out of character for a liberal. It seems part of the rhetorical arsenal of the conservative justifying the rape of the natural world in the name of human progress. Rights trumping rights is historically stained. It is a more sincere and effective route to appeal to the problem (s) than appeal to a sense of hierarchy. (Both sides do this). Many social ills are tangled up in unwanted pregnancy. Many 'unwanted pregnancies' are tangled up in corporatist values; fears of resigning from the rat race, and pressure for bearing children when it is commercially, traditionally viable. (Where do these values come from?)

 

On a polarized issue I have probably managed to offend both sides. If that is the case I apologize. Somewhere in my response is an honest attempt to evaluate the merit of both sides, though, ultimately, as a male, this is out of my territory.

[Anders Hoveland]

Under slavery the Negro was brutalised and denied personhood. Now it's the fetus.

 

 

 

 

The abortion-lobby seeks to make the fetus the woman's slave.

Abortion is the Liberal version of racism— but so much worse!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in restricting free speech. But if we do have hate speech laws, I think there should be hate speech laws protecting the fetus.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

Wow.

 

Where do we start with the logical fallacy appeal-to-emotion Godwin's law super-salad....

[uncool]

I'll start with this:

 

Chuck Asay really, really shouldn't try to speak for African-Americans. Just...no.

=Uncool-

[overtone]

Nobody has ever actually believed that a three month embryo was a person.

 

You can verify that by noticing how they are and have always been treated in every other circumstance aside from theoretical abortion.

 

If they were a person, the woman would have the right of self-defense.

 

So the entire anti-abortion movement is fundamentally dishonest. And we don't need the abortion clinic stats - showing higher, not lower, rates of abortion in strongly pro-life communities and regions, especially fundamentalist Christians - or any other abstract piece of data to back that up. Just look at them.

[Anders Hoveland]

When it comes down to it, it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus.

Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

One has to question whether it is really a right when, in order for it to be granted, someone else has to be denied their rights. As far as I am concerned, slavery, the "civil rights" movement, and abortion are all the same. In each of these three instances, one party claims a right at the expense of another.

 

Most women who are seeking abortions for their convenience never even bothered to make sure the man was wearing a condom. While 72% of women who were getting abortions had not used condoms with their sexual partners, 46% of the women had not bothered to use any form of contraception! More than 86% of abortions are done for the woman's convenience – in other words they didn’t want the child or felt they couldn't afford a baby. Less than 1% of abortions are performed because of rape or incest.

( source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html )

 

Let me ask this question: Who should be the one penalised for the poor choices made by the mother?

[jeskill]

72 % of women not using condoms is not the same as "46% of women did not use contraception the month they conceived".

 

By-the-by, why is it that you write about women not using condoms, (those harlots!!!) when the man is the partner who actually wears them?

 

And we've dissected this data in depth in the "Ethics of Abortion" thread quite recently ( I think it starts up on the 3rd or 4th page) ... you may want to read it, as I sure as hell don't want to spend my time regurgitating past arguments.

[mooeypoo]

When it comes down to it, it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus.

Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

Your logic is ridiculous. Saying that the abolishment of slavery resulted in taking away business owners' rights to own slaves is the same as saying that making a law against murder is taking away criminals' rights to kill you.

 

It's very Hobbesian, and yet if you bother to read his entire point, even he agrees that the right to hurt others is not, in fact, a right at all.

 

Now, in order to claim that abortion takes away the right of the fetus to live, you must first establish that a first trimester fetus is, in fact, alive. Saying so just because you feel like it is not, in fact, proof. In fact, you did not prove it, and the scientific and medical evidence we actually have suggest that a fetus does not fit our definition of 'alive' in the first trimester. Not even remotely.

 

There is little distinction, medically speaking, between the blastocyst and any other cyst, which is why if an unfortunate woman suffers natural abortion, we do not arrest her for manslaughter.

 

This argument is simply not consistent, and your attempt to bombard us with cheap low-blow attempts of emotional mumbo jumbo might make people upset, but it won't actually prove your point.

 

We're a science forum, not a personal racist blog. The fact you don't approve of the abolishment of slavery (you're not even being coy about this) doesn't serve your point, either. If you don't mind, we prefer going by evidence, rational arguments and the avoidance of ridiculous fallacious emotion-filled not-even-hidden racist salad.

Thanks.

 

~mooey

[ParanoiA]

Your logic is ridiculous. Saying that the abolishment of slavery resulted in taking away business owners' rights to own slaves is the same as saying that making a law against murder is taking away criminals' rights to kill you.

 

We're a science forum, not a personal racist blog. The fact you don't approve of the abolishment of slavery (you're not even being coy about this) doesn't serve your point, either. If you don't mind, we prefer going by evidence, rational arguments and the avoidance of ridiculous fallacious emotion-filled not-even-hidden racist salad.

 

Wrong, he's talking about Civil Rights (1964-65), very clearly stated, not Abolition of slavery. Not even Fox News would spin such straight forward language.

 

When it comes down to it, it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus.

Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

You owe him an apology for grossly misrepresenting his position and flat out ignoring written words. You took someone who believes in property rights - wherein business property is considered equivalent to personal property and we all have a right to be racist tools about who comes into our homes - and tortured his position to mean he believes in slavery. That's low. Disgustingly low.

 

 

A better argument would be to point out that the mother already lives, and is a person, and has been a person for quite some time, invested into human societies without question. So her rights trump the rights of the fetus, who's personhood is in question, has not even a fraction of the investment into life that the mother has.

 

Or maybe that's a crap argument. But ignoring the issue of one of the life forms - mom or fetus - gaining at the expense of the other is dishonest. One must lose for the other to gain. I very comfortably choose the fetus to lose (or tumor or parasite) over the mom.

Edited November 13, 2012 by ParanoiA

[jeskill]

As an aside, since when does "I can't afford to have a child" equal "a woman feels it's inconvenient to have a child"? Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a kid?

[zapatos]

Wrong, he's talking about Civil Rights (1964-65), very clearly stated, not Abolition of slavery. Not even Fox News would spin such straight forward language.

I'm not so sure she got it wrong.

 

Anders specifically equated Civil Rights with slavery two sentences after stating that Civil Rights took rights away from business owners:

Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

One has to question whether it is really a right when, in order for it to be granted, someone else has to be denied their rights. As far as I am concerned, slavery, the "civil rights" movement, and abortion are all the same.

 

I did not, however, see where he limited Civil Rights to 1964-1965. It seems to me that slavery was very much a Civil Rights issue.

 

I believe Anders is indeed suggesting that you have to take rights away from business owners to give people civil rights, and you have to take rights away from slave owners in order to give rights to slaves.

[randomc]

Apparently there was no widespread consensus amongst christian evangelicals that life begins at conception until the 1960's/70's:

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

 

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

 

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

 

The correspondence between the sexual revolution of that time and the sudden unity and change of position of evangelicals is noteworthy.

 

..............................

 

Let me get this straight.

 

The exploitation of women is due to the "It's just sex" maxim who you claim is vaunted by a group of girls.

 

So, in other words, since women treat sex casually, they get exploited. Is this what you meant to say, or is this just a byproduct of what you were unsuccessfully trying to say?

 

I mean, not that it's the first time I hear the "blame the victim" mantra, but this one's a relatively imaginative one. Kudos for that. I'll ignore the enormous generalization you seem to be making about women in general and their supposed exploitation in general, so we can concentrate on the crux of the blame issue.

 

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though, because of your earlier comment that:

 

 

--is a perfect example for flawed logic.

 

First, if you think that the difference between 'sex' and 'sex crime' is grey area even in principle, I would suggest you keep your genitalia inside your pants and never use them for sex, in fear you may accidentally be criminal with it.

 

Second, this statement is not different than saying that the difference between using a computer and using a computer criminally is a grey area.

It's not a grey area.

 

Neither is violence or criminal sex. It's very clear, really. If it's not concensual, it's not legal. If it's with a minor it's not legal. If it's violent and hurt someone, it's not legal.

No grey here. Not even shades of grey.

 

 

16 year old prostitution is legal? Where is this again? As far as I understand it, that's not supposed to be legal. Not because of prostitution necessarily (that's a different issue) but because they're minor.

 

I'd like to get more details on this, seeing as you're using it as an example to show how your entire idea is correct. Proof or drop it, as we often say to science people.

 

 

 

What is "sex positive bandwagon" and who are you to tell anyone what to do with their own genitalia? If I want to have sex with a woman, or a man, or two men and three women, it's my business. The only way you should care about it is if my act is hurting someone else. Which, unless you're considering having blueballs from not being able to join in "being hurt", is not hurting anyone.

 

 

 

So. You seem to claim sex and criminal sex are too close together. That's scary.

You seem to claim "positive sex" is bad. The solution is easy: don't practice it.

You seem to claim that women bring about their own exploitation. I dare you to repeat this to a woman who's been raped. All three, in fact.

 

 

 

And let me reiterate: If you don't see a big difference between sex and criminal sex, please keep you sex to your own hands, and stay away from others.

 

Unbelievable.

 

~mooey

 

OK, i take your position to be that resistance to the establishment of more liberal normative attitudes to sex necessarily represents a desire to control women. Is that right?

 

...

 

I have to acknowledge that you (and Ringer) are clearly right in saying that difficulties in defining consent don't allow the conclusion that the difference between sex and sex-crime is a grey area. The difference is almost always stark in law.

 

But...the policing of sex-crime is logistically difficult, as can be seen in the ratio of reported crimes to successful prosecutions across many countries.

 

My point was that very tolerant normative attitudes to sex can (need not, but can) lead to the logistics of policing sex crime becoming even more difficult.

 

Why? If the normative attitude to sex takes the null position that there isn't any harm, it becomes still more difficult for victims to speak out. Sexual sophistication is a fairly universal indicator of status, in fact we can take an example from this very thread - you identify me as a sexually unsophisticated person in your subtly ridiculing statement...

 

The only way you should care about it is if my act is hurting someone else. Which, unless you're considering having blueballs from not being able to join in "being hurt", is not hurting anyone.

 

i would suggest a prevalence of such sentiments in a community would act as a disincentive to victims of sex crimes to speak out. In cases such as those in the ceop white paper i linked, the victims may not even feel that they are victims until many years later.

 

Further, sex being considered normatively harmless hands exploiters a powerful tool to manipulate both their victims and their own moral reasoning.

 

So, i think the encouragement of tolerant attitudes to sex can create (in the UK, are creating) problems that need to be addressed. Closing down the discussion with a myopic emotionally fueled rant is not helpful.

[ParanoiA]

Anders specifically equated Civil Rights with slavery two sentences after stating that Civil Rights took rights away from business owners:

 

Anders will have to specify I guess, which still means that assumptions of pro-slavery are convenient for hostile treatment of dissent.

 

Civil Rights has always been associated to the 1964-65 legal movement. Slavery is overwhelmingly a civil rights violation, which makes "civil rights" a grossly underrated phrase which is why it is rarely associated with abolition of slavery. It's like using the term "reproductive rights" to refer to rape. Well yes, that's a violation of reproductive rights, to be sure, however since we have a dictionary full of better terms to use, we don't use that phrase.

 

Anders is correct, slavery is the same as abortion in terms of consistency with his own belief. The existence of slavery required one person to lose their rights to another. That was his point. I'll bet you thought he meant that the *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. But that is not consistent with anything he has said on slavery in above posts.

 

I'm reading what he is writing.

[jeskill]

I have to acknowledge that you (and Ringer) are clearly right in saying that difficulties in defining consent don't allow the conclusion that the difference between sex and sex-crime is a grey area. The difference is almost always stark in law.

 

If sex-education is well-done, and both men and women are taught the legal definition of consent, then there is no difficulty in defining consent.

 

But...the policing of sex-crime is logistically difficult, as can be seen in the ratio of reported crimes to successful prosecutions across many countries.

 

This often has more to do with the unwillingness to police sex-crimes than the logistics of doing so.

 

My point was that very tolerant normative attitudes to sex can (need not, but can) lead to the logistics of policing sex crime becoming even more difficult.

Intolerant attitudes towards sex can also make it difficult to police sex crimes. Don't forget: in most cultures that have strict norms for sex, women are expected to be the gatekeepers of their chastity. Women who are raped are often afraid to speak out, making it difficult to police sex crimes. http://www.wisemusli...tizationofrape/

Almost 50 percent of women in a study of female deaths in Alexandria, Egypt were killed by a relative after being raped

 

Why? If the normative attitude to sex takes the null position that there isn't any harm, it becomes still more difficult for victims to speak out. Sexual sophistication is a fairly universal indicator of status, in fact we can take an example from this very thread - you identify me as a sexually unsophisticated person in your subtly ridiculing statement...

 

I disagree. If a woman has a good understanding of her rights, and a good understanding of the legal definition of consent, then she will be more likely to speak out.

 

i would suggest a prevalence of such sentiments in a community would act as a disincentive to victims of sex crimes to speak out. In cases such as those in the ceop white paper i linked, the victims may not even feel that they are victims until many years later.

Your white paper is not an example of a "sex-positive" culture. It's an example of an exploitative culture. BIG difference.

 

Anders will have to specify I guess, which still means that assumptions of pro-slavery are convenient for hostile treatment of dissent.

 

Civil Rights has always been associated to the 1964-65 legal movement. Slavery is overwhelmingly a civil rights violation, which makes "civil rights" a grossly underrated phrase which is why it is rarely associated with abolition of slavery. It's like using the term "reproductive rights" to refer to rape. Well yes, that's a violation of reproductive rights, to be sure, however since we have a dictionary full of better terms to use, we don't use that phrase.

 

Anders is correct, slavery is the same as abortion in terms of consistency with his own belief. The existence of slavery required one person to lose their rights to another. That was his point. I'll bet you thought he meant that the *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. But that is not consistent with anything he has said on slavery in above posts.

 

I'm reading what he is writing.

 

Given what he has written before in previous threads concerning "race", my instinct is that Zapatos' explanation is correct.

Edited November 13, 2012 by jeskill

[swansont]

When it comes down to it, it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus.

I take it you believe that Constitutional rights extend to all, even non-citizens?

 

 

—————

 

One reason I question the sincerity of the so-called pro-life movement was mentioned before by iNow (they aren't so pro-life when it comes to e.g. the death penalty and waging war).

 

Another is that there is no push to try and curb the vast number of miscarriages; at least a quarter of known pregnancies result in one, and it's estimated that perhaps a like number occur without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant. That brings this total in line with the number of abortions. Which leads one to wonder why the "life begins at conception" crowd pays no attention to this issue.

 

One obvious possible conclusion is that this isn't about the life of the fetus at all.

[zapatos]

Anders will have to specify I guess, which still means that assumptions of pro-slavery are convenient for hostile treatment of dissent.

Yes, this just may be a misunderstanding.

 

Civil Rights has always been associated to the 1964-65 legal movement. Slavery is overwhelmingly a civil rights violation, which makes "civil rights" a grossly underrated phrase which is why it is rarely associated with abolition of slavery. It's like using the term "reproductive rights" to refer to rape. Well yes, that's a violation of reproductive rights, to be sure, however since we have a dictionary full of better terms to use, we don't use that phrase.

Ok, good point.

 

Anders is correct, slavery is the same as abortion in terms of consistency with his own belief. The existence of slavery required one person to lose their rights to another. That was his point. I'll bet you thought he meant that the *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. But that is not consistent with anything he has said on slavery in above posts.

Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong?

 

I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad.

 

I think I interpreted him corretly. It is not my fault if he misspoke.

 

I'm reading what he is writing.

I feel like I am too. Given that he is supportive of 6" probes being inserted in women's vaginas and forced sterilization of women my interpretation of his postion did not seem unreasonable to me. I guess we are both being selective in which things we see.

[swansont]

When it comes down to it, it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus.

Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

One has to question whether it is really a right when, in order for it to be granted, someone else has to be denied their rights. As far as I am concerned, slavery, the "civil rights" movement, and abortion are all the same. In each of these three instances, one party claims a right at the expense of another.

How exactly were rights taken away by the civil rights movement? The result (in principle) was equal rights — no discrimination on the basis of race or national origin (among other criteria).

[Arete]

One obvious possible conclusion is that this isn't about the life of the fetus at all.

 

I'm still waiting for a response to a similar question I posed way back on page 1:

 

So do you consider life and therefore human rights to begin at conception? If so, how do you feel about the fact that only ~30-40% of fertilized embryos implant in the uterine wall, while the rest spontaneously abort? This would, if these embryos are to be considered human beings be the leading cause of human mortality - in fact more than all other causes of death combined. Wouldn't this make research on heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, etc. grossly disproportionate?

 

and also:

 

Outlawing abortion doesn't lower the rate of abortions undertaken. If fact the previous link shows that the abortion rate is increasing in countries where it is outlawed, and decreasing in nations where it is legal. Providing free contraception does lower the abortion rate. Previously cited evidence shows the Republican party actively attempting to restrict and limit access to contraception. Therefore, actions by the party you support are going to increase abortion rates - something you find abhorrent. Why aren't you addressing the Republican stance on contraception - given how much you abhor population growth and abortion?

 

Before we start answering your questions Anders it would be helpful to have your position on these issues clear, for the purposes of further discussion and comparison to other sociopolitical issues.

[ParanoiA]

Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong?

 

I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad.

 

I think I interpreted him corretly. It is not my fault if he misspoke.

 

It isn't your fault if he misspoke, but it is your fault for making conclusions regardless. When someone isn't clear, you don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality.

 

Your conclusion that he was disparaging the abolition of slavery as the point at which rights were transfered unfairly is entirely at odds with his previous comments on slavery, not to mention one gigantic post # 52 that refuts this interpretation spectacularly. Here it is:

 

Under slavery the Negro was brutalised and denied personhood. Now it's the fetus.

 

 

 

 

The abortion-lobby seeks to make the fetus the woman's slave.

Abortion is the Liberal version of racism— but so much worse!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in restricting free speech. But if we do have hate speech laws, I think there should be hate speech laws protecting the fetus.

 

 

Sorry, but interpreting him as pro-slavery - again - is convenient for hostile treatment of dissent. It does nothing to the advancement of anything but poop throwing fights.

 

How exactly were rights taken away by the civil rights movement? The result (in principle) was equal rights — no discrimination on the basis of race or national origin (among other criteria).

 

Property rights were removed. When you see a partition between personal property (your house) and "business" property, then you will interpret civil rights legislation as equal rights. When you refuse this partition, and see all property as personal property, then you will likely interpret civil rights legislation as transfered property rights. That is precisely how I look at it. For the same reason that it does not promote racism and bigotry to advocate a person have the right to refuse anyone entry into his home for any reason he chooses - even racism - it also does not promote discrimination to uphold that same right when people trade while occupying the property, ie..business.

 

So do you consider life and therefore human rights to begin at conception? If so, how do you feel about the fact that only ~30-40% of fertilized embryos implant in the uterine wall, while the rest spontaneously abort? This would, if these embryos are to be considered human beings be the leading cause of human mortality - in fact more than all other causes of death combined. Wouldn't this make research on heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, etc. grossly disproportionate?

 

Excellent question. I saw that earlier in the thread, great point.

[swansont]

Property rights were removed. When you see a partition between personal property (your house) and "business" property, then you will interpret civil rights legislation as equal rights. When you refuse this partition, and see all property as personal property, then you will likely interpret civil rights legislation as transfered property rights. That is precisely how I look at it. For the same reason that it does not promote racism and bigotry to advocate a person have the right to refuse anyone entry into his home for any reason he chooses - even racism - it also does not promote discrimination to uphold that same right when people trade while occupying the property, ie..business.

Discrimination wasn't a right that was taken away, it was a privilege that was lost.

[zapatos]

It isn't your fault if he misspoke, but it is your fault for making conclusions regardless. When someone isn't clear, you don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality.

I responded properly to the words he wrote. I acknowledged in my first sentence that this could just be a misunderstanding. I then went on to explain why I interpreted it the way I did.

 

It is a bunch of crap that I should be criticized by you for doing so.

 

Tell me, is Romney for or against universal health care? First he said yes, then he said no. I myself will avoid commenting on it so as to avoid expecting him to reconcile one comment with another.

 

Your conclusion that he was disparaging the abolition of slavery as the point at which rights were transfered unfairly is entirely at odds with his previous comments on slavery, not to mention one gigantic post # 52 that refuts this interpretation spectacularly. Here it is:

Yes, I saw that but thank you for posting it again.

 

Sorry, but interpreting him as pro-slavery - again - is convenient for hostile treatment of dissent. It does nothing to the advancement of anything but poop throwing fights.

How is that different from interpreting him as con-slavery again? You acknowledged that his position wasn't clear. As a wise man once said, "You don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality."

[ParanoiA]

Discrimination wasn't a right that was taken away, it was a privilege that was lost.

 

Again, that's imprecise and incomplete. Do you view your right to discriminate who enters your home as a privilege? Or is it a right?

 

I think you have a right to deny access to your home to anyone for any reason. I do not support racism or bigotry, although I obviously support your right to be so. You do too, actually.

 

Tell me, is Romney for or against universal health care? First he said yes, then he said no. I myself will avoid commenting on it so as to avoid expecting him to reconcile one comment with another.

 

That would be wise decision. It is not your fault that Romney is not clear, just like it is not your fault that dark energy is not clear. However drawing conclusions about each, when we know they are not clear, is irresponsible.

 

It is a bunch of crap that I should be criticized by you for doing so.

 

Sorry. From what posts I've read, you strike me as a very fair minded, logically driven person.

 

How is that different from interpreting him as con-slavery again? You acknowledged that his position wasn't clear. As a wise man once said, "You don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality."

 

I haven't seen anything that he has written that suggest pro-slavery in order to not be clear on it. Consistently he has been anti-slavery in his writing. The only time we aren't "clear" is when he uses the phrase "Civil Rights", but I simply cannot speak for him to validate your inquiry, however I think his position is clear. You don't. I only take issue when someone is choosing an interpretation that is entirely contradictory with recent data. And when they use the excuse "he wasn't clear", I take issue with choosing a conclusion then.

Edited November 13, 2012 by ParanoiA

[zapatos]

...however I think his position is clear. You don't.

You may want to reread the posts. I never said his position was unclear, I simply suggested he may have misspoke in his most recent post.

 

You on the other hand, said:

It isn't your fault if he misspoke, but it is your fault for making conclusions regardless. When someone isn't clear, you don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality.

 

So please don't accuse me of 'making excuses', and doing so by attributing your quote to me.

 

I only take issue when someone is choosing an interpretation that is entirely contradictory with recent data. And when they use the excuse "he wasn't clear", I take issue with choosing a conclusion then.

 

Regardless, I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery. But if he misspeaks the penalty should go to him, not to the person who responds to what he said.

[ParanoiA]

You may want to reread the posts. I never said his position was unclear, I simply suggested he may have misspoke in his most recent post.

 

When I read your quote below, including that last bit where you made the "leap" yourself, suggests you weren't clear. You had to make a "leap" to connect business owners and civil rights to mean slave owners and civil rights. But now you offer that you were always clear, and suggested he misspoke when you - you mind you - "leaped" to associate business owners and civil rights as a statement about slaveowners and slaves. If it was clear, why was the leap necessary? Makes no sense...

 

That was pricesly my issue. You (and mooey) had two possible interpretations, and one of them had supporting evidence and data in the same thread on the same page, on the very issue. Yet you chose the other interpretation that had none. Looks like republicans and Benghazi to me. Nothing to see here unless you spin it.

 

Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong?

 

I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad.

 

 

Regardless, I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery. But if he misspeaks the penalty should go to him, not to the person who responds to what he said.

 

I have yet to see any misspeak. I have yet to read anything from him to suggest pro-slavery. He's using slavery as a moral analog, and since he's conservative his opinion is considered "criminal" and his motivations questioned. Conservatives and libertarians are not given the respect due when arguing for rights - their arguments are considered cover for bigotry. So, I am not surprised that interpretations to Ander's posts would mirror the caricature of racist republicans.

 

When I attempt to do the same to liberals and statists and suggest their position on immigration and lack of immigration reform is racism, favoring immigrant status to remain "illegal" and not protected by labor laws so they can be exploited in the labor market, they get pretty pissy about it too.

[swansont]

Again, that's imprecise and incomplete. Do you view your right to discriminate who enters your home as a privilege? Or is it a right?

 

I think you have a right to deny access to your home to anyone for any reason. I do not support racism or bigotry, although I obviously support your right to be so. You do too, actually.

But that right hasn't been lost. It's your business that's affected, and the constitution grants the power to the government to regulate this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Civil_rights