| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2012 05:00:45 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nice. I've been called ludicrous and now a nazi. Always the moderate Judith...
I understand this is Rant and what goes along, but I'll say that quote is a bit strong even for this forum. I find it offensive. |
I did not call you a Nazi. The quotation was not directed at you personally. Nor did I call you ludicrous. What I said was that the argument that a clump of cells is a person is ludicrous. If you want to take my comments personally, that's your problem. And if you identify with Pat Robertson and that crowd, that's your problem too.
ETA: The words you're so offended by are not even my own. Chris Hedges is a very accomplished person, a New York Times war correspondent, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School.
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 17:17:14. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 05:18:54 PM · #302 |
| Rant has a way of lumping. I'm a Christian and thus I belong to Robertson, Fallwell, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades. Your quote only fuels the fire. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 05:22:35 PM · #303 |
| I know quite a few Christians who would say they definitely do NOT "belong" to Robertson and Falwell. Again, your problem, not mine. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 05:33:58 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nice. I've been called ludicrous and now a nazi. Always the moderate Judith...
I understand this is Rant and what goes along, but I'll say that quote is a bit strong even for this forum. I find it offensive. |
This is why I stopped debating you DrAchoo... at no point were you called a Nazi.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:05:04 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What I said was that the argument that a clump of cells is a person is ludicrous. |
So, what is that clump of cells?
It's a growing clump of cells with human DNS different from the woman. What would you call it?
I guess it comes down to what you think a person is.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:07:25 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
]
This is why I stopped debating you DrAchoo... at no point were you called a Nazi. |
Come Mousie, I know Judith didn't say, "you, Achoo, you are a Nazi." But look at the quote and the context of this thread. The "religious right" was being called the ideological inheritors of the Nazi movement. In the context of this current debate (abortion), it is assumed I would be associated with the "religious right" (though I don't identify with them on many other fronts). Why shouldn't I make the connection? In the PC world people get fired for stuff like this. Do you really think the ESPN author meant to use the term "chink in the armor" derisively when writing about Jeremy Lin? He lost his job over it.
You can't have it both ways and demand that people are tolerant and aware of words and their meanings and then throw out a quote like this and say, hey, go easy, I didn't mean you personally.
I, of course, do not identify myself with Robertson and Falwell, but I know that the eyes of Rant are not discriminating enough to see that differentiation, especially when Judith just declared that a position held by roughly half of this country is "ludicrous" ("causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable"). Declarations like that cause me to bristle because they are so self-righteous (which is ironic). |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:14:21 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't have it both ways and demand that people are tolerant and aware of words and their meanings and then throw out a quote like this and say, hey, go easy, I didn't mean you personally.
|
Funny that...I clearly recall some participants in rant referring to "Atheists" as being amoral and using very similar language when taken to task over it.
I myself used the word "ilk", which was misunderstood by some to be a derogatory comment when in truth I meant it as belonging to a group, genus or family.
Strange things words...their interpretations can be varied and cause injury where none was intended.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:23:13 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Strange things words...their interpretations can be varied and cause injury where none was intended. |
I remember leaping to your defense on that one :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:26:10 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Strange things words...their interpretations can be varied and cause injury where none was intended.
Ray |
Especially if it's convenient to misconstrue something.
Jason, you really believe the folks here who argue debate with you consider you of the same ilk as Falwell & Robertson?
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:28:13 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Strange things words...their interpretations can be varied and cause injury where none was intended. |
I remember leaping to your defense on that one :-)
R. |
You most certainly did my friend and I thank you for it. I attributed the divergence of opinions on that one to factors such as age (mine), linguistic differences (first official language French for me) and the general usage of the term in differing social circles.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:30:00 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Jason, you really believe the folks here who argue debate with you consider you of the same ilk as Falwell & Robertson? |
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll still answer that; it looks to me like some of them do, at least some of the time. There's a lot of conflation going on in a thread like this, on both sides of the debate argument :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 06:39:19 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
]
This is why I stopped debating you DrAchoo... at no point were you called a Nazi. |
Come Mousie, I know Judith didn't say, "you, Achoo, you are a Nazi." But look at the quote and the context of this thread. The "religious right" was being called the ideological inheritors of the Nazi movement. In the context of this current debate (abortion), it is assumed I would be associated with the "religious right" (though I don't identify with them on many other fronts). Why shouldn't I make the connection? In the PC world people get fired for stuff like this. Do you really think the ESPN author meant to use the term "chink in the armor" derisively when writing about Jeremy Lin? He lost his job over it.
You can't have it both ways and demand that people are tolerant and aware of words and their meanings and then throw out a quote like this and say, hey, go easy, I didn't mean you personally.
I, of course, do not identify myself with Robertson and Falwell, but I know that the eyes of Rant are not discriminating enough to see that differentiation, especially when Judith just declared that a position held by roughly half of this country is "ludicrous" ("causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable"). Declarations like that cause me to bristle because they are so self-righteous (which is ironic). |
I don't know what more I can say except to assure you that I was not thinking about you at all when I posted that message. (But as an aside, and at the risk of upsetting you again, don't you think it's a wee bit egotistical to insist that I must have been directing that comment to you personally?) Again, the quotation from Hedges' book came to mind last night while I was watching the Maddow Show segment, in the context of the discussion of the state-sponsored rape bill and the other legislation she mentioned, AND similar legislation being enacted in other states by the religious right of which I am aware, so not just a discussion about abortion.
As for being offended in Rant, I'm offended quite often when I read these threads, often by your own words, but I don't complain about it. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 07:11:23 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Jason, you really believe the folks here who argue debate with you consider you of the same ilk as Falwell & Robertson? |
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll still answer that; it looks to me like some of them do, at least some of the time. There's a lot of conflation going on in a thread like this, on both sides of the debate argument :-)
R. |
The real problem here, it seems to me, is that Jason himself identifies with Falwell and Robertson with respect to some of these issues. Maybe he doesn't think the legislation the right-wing is enacting all over the country with respect to abortion and contraception and gay rights is all that bad. He's lumping himself in with them and their goals and aspirations, and then he's upset when it's called out for what it is. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 07:42:55 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Jason, you really believe the folks here who argue debate with you consider you of the same ilk as Falwell & Robertson? |
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll still answer that; it looks to me like some of them do, at least some of the time. There's a lot of conflation going on in a thread like this, on both sides of the debate argument :-)
R. |
The real problem here, it seems to me, is that Jason himself identifies with Falwell and Robertson with respect to some of these issues. Maybe he doesn't think the legislation the right-wing is enacting all over the country with respect to abortion and contraception and gay rights is all that bad. He's lumping himself in with them and their goals and aspirations, and then he's upset when it's called out for what it is. |
The irony was lost in the typing so I probably just muddled it up with that post. I have frequently had people like Falwell, Robertson or history like the inquisition or crusades thrown in my face and people demand I account for it merely because I'm a Christian. So when I said I am associated with them I meant in the eyes of people here, not in my own eyes. It probably wasn't clear what I meant. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 07:54:53 PM · #315 |
Yep. It's those constant assumptions, the aimless playing of devil's advocate, and the dismissal of information based purely on the immediate source (without any sort of drill-down to check its veracity) that got to me. You pretty much can't debate people employing that stuff.
But I can certainly point it out for the record.
"You can't have it both ways and demand that people are tolerant and aware of words and their meanings and then throw out a quote like this and say, hey, go easy, I didn't mean you personally."
I can't even parse this. Exactly how am I (are we) having it two ways here? It's a quote. She was reminded of it, because of the context of this thread. I assume (having been given no other choice) that you're referring to the definition of the word marriage when you suggest I 'demand' people are tolerant and aware of the meanings of words. What this has to do with a suggestion that the 'conservative' right is the ideological inheritor of the authoritarian worldview of the Nazi party is not apparent. I don't even know why you're trying to draw a line between the two. Can you explain the connection with a little more detail than your implicit, and IMO unfounded, "stop being hypocrites"?
If anything, tossing a quote like that relies on the tolerance and awareness of the reader.
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 20:12:24. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 09:40:03 PM · #316 |
Jason wasn't called a Nazi but at the same time I think it was very poor taste to mention it except to demonize his side's position. If anything he has science on his side. Science tells us that there is virtually no difference between a baby just born and what was in the womb earlier. To choose the birth date as the basis for personhood is as arbitary as you can get. It's no different than choosing age 21 as the basis for adulthood.
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 21:41:34. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 09:59:29 PM · #317 |
Transvaginal ultrasound images. NSFW
This is not acceptable. Not at all.
While you all are bickering about name calling, egregious laws are being passed. Who does this help? Seriously? It's like... you want an abortion, here is some forced penetration so you learn your lesson... even if you've just been raped.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 10:01:11 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Wow. This is priceless....... In January, as the Virginia State Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have a rectal exam and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra. The amendment was rejected in the Senate, 21-19.
//news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/ |
The other proposed legislation discussed in that article (to control or invade men's bodies) is priceless, too.
I found this segment of The Rachel Maddow Show, her expose of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (supporter of the state-sanctioned rape bill, otherwise known as the trans-vaginal ultrasound bill) very interesting. From her expose, some choice quotations from the gov:
"leaders must correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state"
"the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state"
"a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family"
(emphasis added)
Also from the expose, McDonnell:
~ supports wage discrimination in employment between men and women
~ supports discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation
~ supports banning contraception
~ supports discrimination in adoption services based on sexual orientation, age, gender, disability, religion, and political belief
While watching this segment of The Rachel Maddow Show, I was reminded of a passage from Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" that I just finished reading:
"Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age -- he was then close to 80 -- we would all be fighting the 'Christian fascists.' The warning, given to me nearly 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of leaders in the Christian Right who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors in America had found a mask for fascism in patriotism and the pages of the Bible." |
Yes let's focus on squabbling over the nazi part when Judith made some really important points here. Perhaps you all should look this over again. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 10:28:57 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason wasn't called a Nazi but at the same time I think it was very poor taste to mention it except to demonize his side's position. If anything he has science on his side. Science tells us that there is virtually no difference between a baby just born and what was in the womb earlier. To choose the birth date as the basis for personhood is as arbitary as you can get. It's no different than choosing age 21 as the basis for adulthood. |
Maybe I missed someone saying it, but I don't recall that anyone in this thread supported the position that date of birth is the basis for declaring personhood. Even the law in the United States doesn't do that. Abortion is illegal after the second trimester or thereabouts, whenever it has been determined that the fetus is viable. And the quotation about Christian fascists had nothing directly to do with the argument around abortion and personhood. Rather it was related to the laws the right-wing politicians are passing in this country in the context of what was discussed in the Rachel Maddow segment. If you watched that video, I think you'll understand better the point I had in mind.
As for demonizing Jason's position, I don't even know what his position is anymore. Do I think what the right-wing is doing is evil and dangerous? Yes, I do. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 10:54:46 PM · #320 |
So in other words like the actual abortion except nothing is actually pulled out? I can understand being upset over having to do the extra procedure but calling it forced rape (as your article mentions) is ridiculous to the extreme. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 11:02:12 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason wasn't called a Nazi but at the same time I think it was very poor taste to mention it except to demonize his side's position. If anything he has science on his side. Science tells us that there is virtually no difference between a baby just born and what was in the womb earlier. To choose the birth date as the basis for personhood is as arbitary as you can get. It's no different than choosing age 21 as the basis for adulthood. |
Maybe I missed someone saying it, but I don't recall that anyone in this thread supported the position that date of birth is the basis for declaring personhood. Even the law in the United States doesn't do that. Abortion is illegal after the second trimester or thereabouts, whenever it has been determined that the fetus is viable. And the quotation about Christian fascists had nothing directly to do with the argument around abortion and personhood. Rather it was related to the laws the right-wing politicians are passing in this country in the context of what was discussed in the Rachel Maddow segment. If you watched that video, I think you'll understand better the point I had in mind.
As for demonizing Jason's position, I don't even know what his position is anymore. Do I think what the right-wing is doing is evil and dangerous? Yes, I do. |
I don't agree with the proposed Virginia law and rarely agree with anything the right-wing does but their push to end partial birth abortions despite the vehement protests from the left over the years is anything but evil. If anything is evil it's those abortions. I'll spare everyone the really NSFW photos. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 12:00:21 AM · #322 |
Here is a thought experiment that is challenging and is part of the meta argument. Let us remove the considerations for the woman's rights to simplify things. I KNOW this isn't the real world case, but bear with me. Let us imagine that we have the technology to grow a human from fertilized egg to baby artificially. At 0 weeks the egg is fertilized. At about 22 weeks the fetus is transferred to a second machine and at 40 weeks the baby is given to its parents.
You may point to one of the moments mentioned or another of your own choosing, but make the argument for when that human should be granted personhood and the rights that go with it. Your argument should fulfill two requirements.
1) it should not be arbitrary. In other words you should be able to explain why that moment is a good one to grant the rights.
2) it should be applicable to all humans without removing human rights from currently accepted persons.
Only when this dilemma is answered should one introduce the unique rights of women or the necessary infringements of their bodily autonomy. In other words, it is not correct to base personhood of the fetus on the ramifications for the mother. The personhood should be granted for its own reason and THEN be weighed against the personhood of the mother. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 12:58:12 AM · #323 |
Yanko, chemical abortion, no nothing gets pulled out. It's besides the point. Like I said earlier, if it was medically necessary, they wouldn't need to make it a LAW. There is point they are trying to make by making this law, and it's sick. You don't need a law to require x-rays before surgery. One would assume if this procedure was NEEDED, a law wouldn't be required. What is the point of this law? That's the question that needs to be asked.
It's not useful to say, abortion is worse, so this law is ok. It's not ok no matter how you swing it. Removal of choice in the matter is not ok.
As far as partial-birth/late term abortions. I was never for those. I think some on the left opposed it on the basis of slippery slope (aka, the banning would lead to all abortions being banned), but not me. I don't see any reason why you can't have figured out the situation and made up your mind well before the 3rd trimester. Ideally before the 2nd. (Even more ideally, use appropriate contraceptives or morning after pill if needed).
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 01:06:43. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 01:03:34 AM · #324 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is a thought experiment that is challenging and is part of the meta argument. Let us remove the considerations for the woman's rights to simplify things. I KNOW this isn't the real world case, but bear with me. Let us imagine that we have the technology to grow a human from fertilized egg to baby artificially. At 0 weeks the egg is fertilized. At about 22 weeks the fetus is transferred to a second machine and at 40 weeks the baby is given to its parents.
You may point to one of the moments mentioned or another of your own choosing, but make the argument for when that human should be granted personhood and the rights that go with it. Your argument should fulfill two requirements.
1) it should not be arbitrary. In other words you should be able to explain why that moment is a good one to grant the rights.
2) it should be applicable to all humans without removing human rights from currently accepted persons.
Only when this dilemma is answered should one introduce the unique rights of women or the necessary infringements of their bodily autonomy. In other words, it is not correct to base personhood of the fetus on the ramifications for the mother. The personhood should be granted for its own reason and THEN be weighed against the personhood of the mother. |
Here is the thing with this. Personally, I don't think I could ever get an abortion (barring extreme circumstances), but other women will have different feelings on the matter. That's their CHOICE. I trust a woman to make up her own mind on the subject, not the government. If the woman thinks an abortion is ok at whatever stage in the pregnancy, it seems to me that obviously she's not ready and/or fit to be a mother and it's for the best. The world is overpopulated and kids are dying from starvation. The millions spent on ending abortion (and fighting gay marriage/adoption, etc, etc) could be put towards helping those kids that are already with us on the Earth today and are suffering. A fetus will not suffer.
That's my aim in life. To help people that are already here. That's what makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 01:24:50 AM · #325 |
Monica, I understand that sentiment, but I will tell you there are dark roads which could be travelled under those auspies.
Plus you totally ignored the question. It's a hard one, but the most important one in the debate. |
|
