Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 2

[Smokering]

I hope this doesn't cross the abortion-debate line, but I can respond to this:

The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life.  The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.

The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.

"Anti-choice" is, for one thing, a negative statement of the position (we talk about people being "anti-", as in negative, angry and bitter); for another, it connotes people who are anti-choices in general. "Anti-choice" sounds like pro-uniformity, pro-drones and clones, pro-Big Brother and mindless sheeple, anti-forty-one-flavours, anti-creativity, anti-individuality.

I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child. Yes, this thinking leads to laws which prevent women exercising one choice (not choices in general), to kill said child; but the point is not to deprive women of choice just for the heck of it, it is to protect to lives of unborn children. Similarly, you are (I'm assuming) pro-choice, and call yourself that because you believe in women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That thinking leads to laws which cause the deaths of unborn children (ending those lives, but not life in general); but (again, I assume) the point is not to kill fetuses just for the heck of it, it is to protect women's rights not to carry a pregnancy to term. The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.

For the record, I also strongly dislike the use of the term "anti-life". I believe pro-choicers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of women, and that they generally believe deaths of the fetuses to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. I also believe pro-lifers are sincerely advocating for what they believe to be the rights and welfare of unborn babies, and that they generally believe the distress of an unwanted pregnancy to be a regrettable consequence, necessary for the greater good but by no means desirable. There are a few extremists on both sides (the woman who had multiple abortions for an art project, people who believe women should not have access to contraceptives or higher education) who can legitimately be called "anti-life" and "anti-choice"; but very few.

And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).

In other words: yes, I think there's good reason for the rule. It's not just about courtesy, but about understanding the point of view of the other side.

[Sustainer]

double post

Edited by Sustainer - 6/25/12 at 10:56am

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

The problem applies both ways. "Pro-choice" implies that the people on the other side are against choice. Both "life" and "choice" are very powerful connotation words. No-one wants to consider herself against life - it connotes frolicking children and smiling babies and verdant pastures and what-have-you; and nobody wants to consider herself against choice, especially in a country which prides itself on freedom and individuality.

But the people on the other side ARE against women having a legal choice.  I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-choice, but when *we* refer to them as anti-choice, it is not inaccurate in the way that it is when they call us "pro-abortion."  If they truly pride themselves on American freedom and individual responsibility, all that says is that they may want to rethink their position on this issue. If they're going to stand behind an assertion that women should be denied access to a medical procedure that allows us control over our own reproduction, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing a limit on freedom and individual choice.

Originally Posted by Smokering

I am pro-life, and I call myself pro-life because the point is that I believe in the humanity of the unborn child. 

But a pro-choice person may also believe that the fetus is human.  What distinguishes a pro-choice person is the understanding that there is no thing nor no ONE whose right to live extends to a right to live inside of a person's body without her consent.

Originally Posted by Smokering

The name of the movement should reflect the philosophy of the movement, not its necessary consequences.

There is a distinction, though.  There are two groups of people who find abortion to be more negative than positive.  One group think it is ethically questionable and claim that they would never choose to have an abortion themselves.  The other group believes that every woman should be denied the legal opportunity to make the choice for herself.  I think these groups should have different and appropriate names.

I also cannot concede that every person who wants to outlaw abortion is motivated by a desire to protect life.  There is, unfortunately, a large group of sexists on your side of the argument, who are motivated by a desire to keep women from controlling our own reproduction or our own bodies, and most of these sexists could quite frankly give a hang about the fetus itself.  They may try to use the fetus to forward their argument, but only as an attempt to hide the fact that their actual motivation is misogyny.

Originally Posted by Smokering

And any discussion of abortion in which the other side is referred to as "anti-[positive connotation word]", in my experience, gets everyone's hackles up very quickly and results in each side demonizing the other and a flame war (or mod slap, heh).

Once again, I've already conceded this and expressed a desire to move on.  I think it's a good idea to get away from this topic now.  We're walking too close to the line.  Let's discuss the candidates and the election in general.

[Smokering]

I'm sorry, I can't respond to your statements without getting into abortion-debate territory, but I think you're still missing the point. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further.

[Sustainer]

I comprehended what you said.  Continuation of the topic between us is unnecessary. We just disagree with each other.

[loveandgarbage]

First, to Sustainer. That's all I'll say on that topic!

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again this election. I'm a born and bred democrat but these days identify more with liberalism because we all know democrats aren't all that liberal (Obama included). I think many of us who were Obama supporters in 2008 are disappointed with his term in office. But he was dealt a tough hand-- failing economy, two wars, and of course the usual pressures and compromises of being head of state. I do fault him for not speaking out sooner on gay marriage, though.

[Smokering]

I comprehended what you said.

I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

I'll accept that if you admit that your own argument in paragraph 1, post #23 undercuts your objection to "anti-life", making the terms "anti-life" and "anti-choice" equally acceptable (in general discourse; not on MDC, obviously, due to the UA). Otherwise, no, I don't think you have comprehended my point at all. That doesn't mean we have to keep discussing it; but don't just claim victory and walk away. That's rude.

I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable.  Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life.  However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose.  I did not "claim victory" in that argument.  I said that you and I disagree.

As far as here on MDC in the discussion of the 2012 presidential election, I appreciate(d) Adina's arguments that, for the sake of a smoother debate, we shall not use the terms "anti-choice," "anti-life" or "pro-abortion."  I concede(d) that.

I'd like to move on with the discussion of the candidates.

[CatsCradle]

Okay, I'll jump in!

I've been alive under 9 different presidents (could have been 10, but Kennedy was assassinated a week before I was born).  I guess I've become somewhat jaded about the political process after all these years, given that local government, the judicial branch and Congress tend to have more impact on my personal life (and I believe the lives of others) than a single figurehead like the president.  That being said, presidents can influence the course of all these branches by appointments  and/or rhetoric.  These days, when choosing someone, I tend to look at what I think is the big picture as opposed to specific ideologies espoused by these individuals. 

I have voted Democratic throughout the years and will probably continue to do so as long as the party's position is in vague line with my overall values.  Like someone upthread said, I didn't view Pres. Obama as any kind of savior in 2008 even though I voted for him, so while I don't agree on all the things he has done, I think he has done a decent job with the tools (or lack thereof) that he has had given the economic mess that we were in four years ago.  I'm not particularly fond of some of his policies (the Drone issue bothers me a lot), but I think overall he is an intelligent, decent human being who really can connect to the people on a lot of levels.  I have absolutely no feelings about the individual Romney (other than the hilarious etch-a-sketch analogy and what I perceive to be his total deer-in-headlights view of working class and poor people), but if he does get into office, we can expect more Citizens United and Wisconsin union-busting thinking to prevail and that bothers me a lot.  And no, I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I do believe that slow erosion of "We the People" is a result of special interests, especially corporate interests.  Maybe Pres. Obama is not the best person to steer us from this, but he's the best person in this election cycle. 

[Smokering]

I do not accept that "anti-life" and "anti-choice" are equally acceptable.  Pro-choice people are not in any way anti-life.  However, the people who I, in general discourse, refer to as "anti-choice" ARE against a woman's right to choose.

Sigh. Let's recap the arguments, shall we? You denied or ignored my argument that "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words; meaning, presumably, that you are in favour of the words "choice" and "life" being used with the assumption that everyone knows they're referring to the specific political issues.

Then you stated that you think it's acceptable to refer to a group not by its stated overriding principle ("pro-life" or "pro-choice"), but by a consequence of the legal ramifications of that principle, as phrased by the opposition. Then you went so far as to say that the other side should be OK with that. So, to turn your own argument on its head, blue text mine:

But the people on the other side ARE against fetuses having a legal right to life.  I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-life, but when *we* refer to them as anti-life, it is not inaccurate .... If they're going to stand behind an assertion that fetuses should be denied access to legal rights which prevent them being killed, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing to take away life.

Tomayto, tomahto.

I did not "claim victory" in that argument.  I said that you and I disagree.

You also claimed to have comprehended my argument, which I do not see from your replies to have been the case. It came off as a very condescending "I know what you're saying, although I won't demonstrate that in my response, but I'll be the bigger person and move on now, because I just had the last word". If you want to rebut my arguments, that's cool; if you want to stop discussing it, stop discussing it; but please don't ignore my points while claiming you know what I meant.

[AdinaL]

Onward, yon debaters!!!  Let's move on.  Please.

[CatsCradle]

I did, AdinaL!  

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Let's recap the arguments, shall we? You denied or ignored my argument that "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words; 

Oh for God's sake.

Yes, "choice" and "life" are powerful connotation words.  I'll give you that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokering

Then you went so far as to say that the other side should be OK with that. 

 

I did not say that the other side should be okay with it.  I said that people who think that women shouldn't have a legal right to choose abortion should acknowledge that they are against women having a legal right to choose abortion.  The legal question at stake is whether or not women should have abortion as a legal choice.  People on your side of the debate say "no."  They want there to be a law that women cannot have that choice.

Quote:

But the people on the other side ARE against fetuses having a legal right to life.  I'm not saying that they should have to identify *themselves* as anti-life, but when *we* refer to them as anti-life, it is not inaccurate .... If they're going to stand behind an assertion that fetuses should be denied access to legal rights which prevent them being killed, they should at least acknowledge that they are proposing to take away life.

The argument doesn't work the other way.  As I said before, what pro-choice people recognize is that any right a fetus might have to live does not extend to a right to live inside of someone's body.  Being inside someone's body is a privilege that requires the consent of the mother.  Women are not incubators.  We have rights too.  That's all.  Pro-choice people, as I said before, are not against life in any way, shape, or form.  People on your side of the argument *are* against women having a choice to terminate their pregnancy.  So anti-choice isn't as inaccurate as anti-life.    The goal of a pro-choice person is not to take away lives.  The goal of a pro-choice person is to keep a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy legal.  The goal of someone on your side of the argument is to make that choice illegal.

Originally Posted by Smokering

You also claimed to have comprehended my argument, which I do not see from your replies to have been the case.

It may be hard for you to believe that I can understand your argument and still disagree with it at the same time, but I assure you that it is true.  I understand your argument.  I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Smokering

"I know what you're saying, although I won't demonstrate that in my response, but I'll be the bigger person and move on now, because I just had the last word". If you want to rebut my arguments, that's cool; if you want to stop discussing it, stop discussing it; but please don't ignore my points while claiming you know what I meant.

The reason I keep trying to move on is that that's what Adina wants us to do.  Otherwise I'd be glad to respond more fully and I wouldn't have any objection to the debate continuing.  I responded to you as fully as I could without crossing over the line that Adina does not want us to cross.  You acknowledged yourself that it is difficult to discuss the terminology issue without getting too close to debating abortion itself, which we are not supposed to do.  You invited me to follow you elsewhere.  I declined.  I explained that there is no need for you to clarify to me further because I already understand your arguments.  We just disagree.  Neither of us is going to get the other to change her mind.

I accepted Adina's regulation that we use the words she wants us to use.  Let's move on.  

[AdinaL]

Sustainer and Smokering - I have asked you several times to move on.  If you cannot do that, I will remove access to this thread for both of you.  You can move it to PM, you can start a new thread to discuss terms and how they are viewed (keeping in mind that abortion debate is still not okay), or you can just agree to disagree.  Whatever you choose, it needs to stop on this thread now.

[Sustainer]

I have agreed to disagree.

[Viola]

I didn't think McCain was that bad, but then he or whoever it is that controls these things, chose Palin as a running mate, and that was a sign to me that they didn't really care about the Office.  I don't know what to think about Romney.  I don't like his public persona, I don't agree with a lot of his platform, so I'm sure I'll vote for Obama.  I've been listening to conservative talk radio a bit these last few months, trying to get a handle on what the thinking is, and today I heard a guy saying that there aren't 50 million uninsured people in the US, the number is more like 15 million, and there are options for them-we can expand Medicaid.  I don't get it. I don't see how that could be viable unless they drastically changed the income requirements, which I don't see happening.  It's like there is a complete disconnect with reality.  What I think is interesting is that a lot of Obama supporters aren't happy with the Affordable Health Care Act either.

[Viola]

This has been going around Facebook: http://www.isidewith.com/

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Viola 

This has been going around Facebook: http://www.isidewith.com/

That gave me

#1 Jill Stein 84%

#2 Barack Obama 80%

Then some people I've never heard of.

Ron Paul, fourth from the bottom.

Mitt Romney, second from the bottom, 27%.  No agreement on any major issues.

About what I'd expect.  I will be voting for Obama.  He and Romney are the only ones with a chance of winning.  If we do anything other than vote for Obama, the only effect will be that Romney will win.

Edited by Sustainer - 7/17/12 at 9:04am

[Sustainer]

Well, the nominees are now official.  What did everyone think of the speeches at the conventions?

[Sustainer]

Just watched the first debate.  Boy did I get tired of seeing Romney's smirk.  And is it just me, or did he insist on having the last word on practically every topic, no matter which of them spoke first?

C'mon people, let's get this discussion rolling again!