Bowser said:
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Look, was a time, maybe, when I could have trusted your point, but not this time.
We had two threads spanning sixteen months in which the contrast of rights was refused; now we have some recognition of that contrast from anti-abortion, but it is also not the slightest bit unpredictable that the point would be construed to utterly ignore a woman's human rights.
As long as anti-abortion regards women as subhuman, its advocates will continue to meet our disgust. The movement in general has had decades, and can't come up with anything but the dehumanization of women. This community in general has had a couple years, and our anti-abortion advocates can't seem to break form or defy expectations.
This determined denigration of women is nothing short of hatred. To you, maybe it's just asking a question, but in the first place, at best it's a really naïve question; to a second, it takes place in an environment and at a time in which this very sleight, the fallacious ontological redefinition of zygote, blastocyst, or fetus to equal a person is in question; and the beeblebrox here is that of course the question is formulated to disregard the human rights of women, because that's all the anti-abortion movement seems capable of.
To the other, acknowledging my entry to the thread, I do still think you're a good bellwether; I actually expect this line of politicking to be prominent in the 2016 cycle. Huckabee and Rubio would have stirred the movement by now, except Trump somehow manages to hog all the action. Still, though, misogyny is going to be an important theme on the Republican side of this electoral cycle.
And the problem with giving you genuine advice on how to push your platform isn't even a question of giving aid and comfort to hatred; rather, the practical challenge is that the advice would have to do with taking a more general approach to what seems to be a somewhat juvenile process of trying to poke small holes with pointed, loaded questions. The problem with that advice, though, is that the more general approach will demonstrate the fallacy not only of that attack vector, but the anti-abortion movement in general.
I have a joke about human frailty and conservatives: It is one thing to acknowledge the fact of human frailty, another entirely to calculate its exploitation. Put simply, there's a difference between recognizing that humans are imperfect and trying to swindle them. Conservatives don't like this point, but any tit-for-tat they get into with liberals about bad behavior still plays to the liberals' favor in diversity, frequency, magnitude, and implications. And, in the end, the difference I'm describing also describes how FOX News operates; their mission is to exploit human frailty in order to bear false witness.
It's a prominent dissonance.
The best innovation the anti-abortion movement has shown over the last four decades is to change a couple of words. They've always stooped to fallacy; that part is just more apparent for repetition in the specific discourse and more generally in the conservative politic.
One of the results is that my side of the dispute is really sick and tired of putting up with this petty rudeness, because no matter how innocent or naïve―and therefore unjustly attacked―people pretend to be, it is a calculated sleight with massive human consequences that they just don't seem to care about. And here's the thing: I dare you to respond with the obvious point about what they do care about, but without committing the same calculated sleight against women. It's a lot harder to do, and when you pull it off, the words have no punch because they're so restrained.
But the problem with the "tough questions", as one member put it, is that in this issue they are often loaded questions. And, you know, the flip side of those decades of misogynistic bullshit from conservatives is that seasoned liberals have a lot of practice with this. That is to say, when one hands over such a disproportionately weighted device, the outsize component is pretty obvious. Our allegedly sane, secular neighbor, for instance, appears to have completely missed this point.
More simpy, if the device is a Toyota Tercel with a four-banger, you'd probably notice the Kenworth drive shaft.
Translated: When you hand over a presupposition of women's inhumanity, some people will notice.
Was a time when those loaded questions worked; people would stutter and give a middling answer. But with so much repetition so often these days, it's getting a bit like jumping jacks. Or, as one high school football coach I knew would say, "I know a lazy side-straddle hop when I see one!"
And it's true, after decades of hearing the same old disrespectful excrement over and over again, I'm not certain why anyone would expect anyone else to pretend it isn't putrefied.
If I could, yeah, I probably would. But I can't. Enough with the silly question.