>>Read it again. I said I believed that the accuser has the burden of proof
>>whether the accusation was in the legal system or not.
>
>If someone wants to advocate a legislative agenda of restricting the
>rights of some traditionallly disenfranchised group, I will certainly
>accuse them of hating this group.
It has not been proven that the primary intent of the legislative agenda is
to restrict the rights of women. The position of pro-life has been, is, and
probably always will be, to protect fetal life.
>They or you can deny it until
>you're blue in the face, I think the discriminatory effect is proof
>enough to at least make the accusation.
That's ridiculous, as I have pointed out repeatedly. The sinking of the
Titanic killed more men than women. Are icebergs misogynistic? The attack
on the marine base in Beirut killed more men than women? Do you think the
terrorists were misandrist? Just because something bad affects one class
of people more than another is *NOT* even plausible evidence that the
motivation was to discriminate against that class. You're grasping at
straws.
>I'm willing to act
>and make the accusation on that proof alone. If someone wants to
>demonstrate in response to this accusation that there is some other
>compelling explanation, then I guess I will be shown to have been
>wrong.
Oh, I see. Pro-lifers are presumed guilty of misogyny until they "prove"
themselves innocent to your satisfaction, eh? And you deny that this is
a witch hunt?
>>I think you're stretching the term "benefit of the doubt" beyond the breaking
>>point, Stephen. It refers to a state of facts; you are merely stating
>>opinions.
>
>Do you deny that forcing a women to carry a pregnancy to term is
>denying her the benefit of the doubt regarding her own ability to make
>judgments about her own reproductive system?
It has little or nothing to do with her ABILITY to make judgments, Stephen.
It has everything to do with her PRIORITIES. Pro-lifers seem to think that
fetuses aren't attributed the proper value by some women. That has nothing
to do with "benefit of the doubt". It's just a disagreement over what
constitutes a minimum acceptable valuation of the fetus. Reasonable people
CAN disagree over such things, Stephen. It disgusts me when people assume
that just because someone disagrees with them, that they are afflicted
by all sorts of malicious motives -- they're a misogynist, a control
freak, or whatever. All you do is stifle rational debate when you spout
unsubstantiated charges like that.
>>>A witch hunt is when someone makes an accusation that cannot be
>>>disproven and is damaging to the accused; for example, fetus fanatics
>>>accuse women of being unable to make a moral judgment about their own
>>>bodies or progeny.
>>
>>That's not an accusation, it's an opinion. Again, you seem to have trouble
>>distinguishing a state of facts from mere opinions.
>
>It's an opinion they want to back up with laws, accusations based on
>those laws, and punishments.
The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of being
unable to make decisions about their bodies. They seek to protect fetuses,
and unless you have proof of anything more than that, I would ask you to
stop throwing around baseless accusations.
>>>You don't consider advocating a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy
>>>to be a witch hunt against women and their rights as persons?
>>
>>Correct. It is no witch hunt. At worst, given your description, it's a
>>moral battle. I might even say "jihad". But that's not the same thing as
>>a witch hunt, which has to do with evidence and facts, not just opinions.
>
>If the fetus fanatics were trying to convince women not to get
>abortions, it would be a moral battle. If they were merely
>persistently pestering women at abortion clinics, it might be a jihad.
>When they advocate a legislative agenda, it has to do with
>accusations, evidence, and guilt.
Again, you're stretching the term beyond the breaking point. Just because
something has to with "accusations, evidence, and guilt" doesn't mean it's
a witch hunt. Are laws against shoplifting "witch hunts"? A witch hunt
occurs when someone pursues and/or apprehends someone else, based on scant
or non-existent evidence. Do you have any proof that the proposed abortion
restrictions would not follow the same rules of evidence that all other
convictions require? In the absence of such proof, I do not see that the
term "witch hunt" is warranted.
>And you
>can be sure that there will be witch hunts against women who were not
>overjoyed about pregnancies but miscarry if their legislative agenda
>goes through.
Wild, unsubstantiated speculation.
>I cannot understand your purposeful ignorance on these
>points. Why would you state opinions that seem to minimize the
>catastrophic effects on women of forced pregnancy laws?
Where did I commit this alleged "minimization"?
>>>I think I have made it clear that in this case I do believe the
>>>irrationality is motivated by malice. I guess we disagree.
>>
>>Trouble is, you're making a statement of fact -- pro-life is motivated by
>>malice against women -- without backing it up. Spout opinions all you want,
>>but if you make an accusation, back it up. Unless you want to start sounding
>>like Adrienne, that is...
>
>I have never elevated my belief that pro-forced pregnancy is motivated
>by malice against women beyond what it is: my belief.
You have accused all pro-lifers of being misogynists.
>Based on that
>belief, I have made that accusation and have provided various
>arguments to back up my belief.
You arguments have been refuted. Your belief is irrational.
>Further, I have no problem with being accused of sounding like
>Adrienne. Although I do not always think she is 100% correct, I find
>myself in general agreement with her on most issues.
Oh, then do you think Don Beaver is a pro-life then, a fact that Adrienne
ADMITS she can't substantiate, but refuses to retract?
>>>Since female is the only characteristic that applies to all persons
>>>whose rights will be restricted by forced pregnancy legislation, I
>>>feel quite comfortable in designating such restrictions as
>>>misogynistic. While I agree that irrational malice comes in all
>>>shapes and sizes, when I see a particular irrationality directed
>>>exclusively at females, I call it misogyny.
>>
>>Ah, and you don't believe that abortion affects the potential father? And you
>>don't believe that abortion affects the medical establishment and medical
>>ethics? And you don't believe that abortion has socio-economic ripple effects?>And, perhaps most importantly to a pro-lifer, you don't think abortion affects>the FETUS????
>
>Last time I checked, we were discussing BA rights.
Among other things. In THIS particular branch of the discussion, we were
discussing whether the discriminatory effect of abortion restrictions implied
that all pro-lifers were misogynists. You claimed that "female is the only
characteristic that applies to all persons whose rights will be restricted
by forced pregnancy legislation". That claim is obviously false. Sure,
female is the only characteristric that applies to all persons whose BODILY
AUTONOMY rights will be restricted by forced pregnancy legislation, but since
pro-lifers are looking at rights _other_ than just BA rights, you can't
presume discriminatory intent in THEIR position.
>>>Why value only fetal life and not real children? Could it be that
>>>/z/e/f/s are inside women and by protecting them you limit the rights
>>>of women?
>>
>>In theory, it could be. But if you cannot actually PROVE this to be the case,
>>IN FACT, then don't make the accusation.
>
>I didn't know I had to listen to you when you say I can or cannot make
>statements based on my beliefs. Oh, wait, I don't. You believe what
>you like and you make statements based on your beleifs. I'll do the
>same.
Don't make accusations of fact unless you can back them up. Discriminatory
effect is NOT sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent, and your claim
of misogyny hinges on a proof of discriminatory intent. Your claim fails
