Choosing sides for the next circular firing squad

Step right up, see the climax from Resevoir Dogs played out by the freaks of the librul socialist pagan left!  Round and round they go on gender issues on the carousel of correctness.  See if their blood really does flow blue as they eviscerate each other right before your eyes!

Snark aside, the rhetoric is getting a little heavy.  For several very good reasons, Markos and his detractors each continue to conflate the arguments with hostile language.  What are they disagreeing over exactly?

We are witnessing a meltdown between right to choice supporters, and right to choice supporters.  I think that there is some misplaced anger and aggression out there, and the best way to have your opinions dismissed is to tell other people that their opinions are not valid.

Let's take a look and see if this looks like a reasonable response, and if maybe we can improve the way we try and tackle these issues.  Step below the fold and watch me try to starve this fire with good 'ole CO2 by flapping my gums calmly at it.

Markos specifically said:

I hate abortion. It's a horrible, horrible thing.

This is his opinion, and expresses where he stands on the issue in his personal life.  He specifically does not extend this opinion to impact anyone's right to choose an abortion.  He later says:

I support choice because I don't think it's my business, or government's, to control any woman's body. I think women have an expectation of privacy when dealing with their personal medical concerns.

What is not clear about this?  You can lead a horse to water.  This horse walked up to the stream on his own.  Don't expect him to drink just because you want him to.  It is essential that Democrats respect each other's right to be Democrats for our own reasons.  Without that basic respect and tolerance, the Democratic party will continue to be the fractured party of November fratricide, moneyed special interests, and Joementum.  

stormcoming:

And tonight, reading on Kos, you telling women it's "horrible".

Shall I even point out [...] that construct [...] comes directly from 30 years of wingnuts 'seeding' and 'loading' the culture, and language, and the very ability to think about abortion [...]

 
You are absolutely correct that there have been 30 years of wingnuts seeding and loading the culture and language against choice.  Don't commit the falacy of confusing cause and effect.  Markos' opinion may or may not have been shaped by that 30 year campaign.  

It is high time to stop telling a father that he isn't entitled to support the right to choose for his own reasons.

Markos is a new father.  Did anyone stop to consider how that may color his perspective?  Is it wrong for a happy new father to have a strong emotional reaction to the issues surrounding parenthood?  Maybe he is due a bit of slack.

stormcoming:

Well you know what? I think all of your treatment of women and our most basic ability to control our own lives is pretty horrible.

Woah there!  If Markos was actually against the right to choose, that would seem to be a perfectly good reason to challenge him like this.  Sadly, he has repeatedly positioned himself as a supporter of a women's sovreign right to have exclusive domain over her body and her life choices.  Where exactly did that invective from?

Now that he has been convinced that he is bad and wrong, I'm sure Markos is highly receptive to the reasons why he shouldn't view abortion as horrible, since that is the only point of difference here.  (can anyone hear me rolling my eyes?)

Ironically, stormcoming's diary is titled: "Abortion is about autonomy. Autonomy is a core value." The diary makes a very strong case for why abortion should not be viewed as horrible, but certainly didn't take the easiest and most convincing road to getting there.

Returning to kos' article for a moment, he said:

It's a horrible, horrible thing. You make that a "key" part of the party, and I'll start looking for a third party.

Markos, do you think perhaps you are playing a bit of Calvinball  here?  Gonna take your ball and go home if the party doesn't fall into lockstep with your position on this one issue and advocate that abortion is horrible but necessary?  Shame on you for failing to consider the appearance of your argument more carefully here, hypocrisy is not your strong suit.

And it is maybe a touch unfair to cast your statement this way because your intent is to cast abortion in light of a larger set of consistent Democratic values.  

My partner and I had a good converstaion on this topic last night.  She also took issue with the somewhat sloppy way the position was expressed:  she suggested that it is the right to an abortion that seems most frequently cast by some single-issue minded folks here as a "core Democratic value."  

The failure to carefully distinguish the right to and abortion, and a private medical procedure, makes a world of difference to many--including yourself.    

Finally, I would point out that kos' position (that the broader themes/values are more important than the issue positions) is undermined simply by giving Google-time to the debate of whether abortion is itself good or bad.  

This discussion needs to happen, but it shouldn't be an exercise in pushing everyone else's buttons as efficiently as possible.

•  Show me where

  the fire extinguisher is, please.  We do our best work when we build each other up rather than tear each other down.

  by nepolon on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:25:51 PM PDT

•  I think much of what Kos was saying

  Is that the Democratic Party is often attacked, and often successfully or being "pro-abortion" not in the sense that we support abortion rights, but that we find every pregant woman we can find, and drag her to an abortion clinic because, golly gee, we get our high by watching someone having an abortion.

  He was trying to make a very clear distinction: there is a difference between supporting abortions, and supporting the right to have an abortion. Essentially the "available, safe, and rare" approach - it should be available, it should be safe (thus presumably legal), but it should also be none as infrequently as possible, because, if you share kos's view, it's not exactly a procedure we should be celebrating and throwing parties over.

  That said, the personal belief of whether you think abortion is wrong, shouldn't be used as a legitimate argument for actually banning abortion.

  Some people here automatically feel like the right to choose is threatened whenever a dem states that he personally doesn't like the procedure of having an abortion, despite the fact that, with most democrats, that has no bearing on their support of choice.

  anyway, i'm ramblinb, so i'll stop before my rambling goes on too long.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:30:57 PM PDT

  •  legal, safe, and rare

    He was trying to make a very clear distinction: there is a difference between supporting abortions, and supporting the right to have an abortion. Essentially the "available, safe, and rare" approach

    I agree that is what I expect kos intended.  It is, however, not what he said.  Sloppy shorthand in language and snap dismissals of others' opinions both contribute to the hostility here.  Precisely what you say matters more than what you mean, sometimes.

    by nepolon on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:44:38 PM PDT

    •  thank you

      i didn't think my three words were right, but i couldn't remember what they were, and they sounded like they fit lol.

      I would agree that how you say something is as or more important than what you say (as the flap over Dean's "white christian" statement is an example of) and i could probably agree with the statement that he could have said it in a better way.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:47:15 PM PDT

  •  unfortunately

    a pro-abortion platform probably isn't going to win many elections.

    by BiminiCat on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

•  You're right...

  in that there's an awful lot of talking past one another around here lately -- and not enough listening.

  But what bothers me most is the Lord-of-the-Flies-ism. (Intentionally left for anyone's consideration.)

  by Omar on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:33:38 PM PDT

•  *sigh*

  I'll stick my hand out and pull back a bloody stump on this, I'm sure...

  Abortion itself is an awful, horrible thing.  So is voluntary amputation of limbs, but it is a legal thing that some people have done - it's legal because it's a private medical procedure that some doctors may or may not be willing to perform.  

  This is not intended to conflate a fetish with what some folks feel to be a necessary and painful (or not) decision, but to draw a verbal line.  Some things are legal, some things are even necessary, even though they remain awful.  

  Ask a soldier who's been in a firefight and had to leave a wounded comrade to die.  It's painful and awful, but there are times when it must be done for the greater good, or just for personal safety.  It's neither something to demonize or deify, it's just a thing that must be done.  

  Ask Michael Schiavo.  His decision was awful and painful - a horrible one, no doubt.  But for him, and he believed for his wife, the right decision.  Not to be demonized or deified, but a necessary, painful decision between the doctor and the patient.  

  Ask thousand of people who decide to pull the plug on loved ones, or have an abortion, because it is the only choice remaining to them.  It isn't a wrong or right decision - it's the choice that has to be made, and it hurts.  And everyone's different.  For some, the decision, once made, is a relief and they know it was right.  For some, it is agony.  

  To pretend this isn't the case is to be dishonest.  Abortion is an awful, horrible thing.  And no one, NO ONE, should ever feel ashamed about making that decision.  It is private, it is a medical decision between patient and doctor.  That doesn't strip away any of the ugliness of it.  Doctors perform ugly, horrible procedures all the time; it's part of their contribution to keeping our society healthy and functioning.

  Does this mean the decision is painful for all?  Absolutely not.  Does this mean everyone makes the decision for good reasons?  No.  There are selfish people who are careless.  This is true of any group in any society, and there isn't an action on this earth that isn't abused by someone at some time.  But we must, absolutely must, face honestly the truth of what we're talking about so that we can better address how to protect these rights that were so damn hard to secure in the first place.

  by switzerblog on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:45:34 PM PDT

  •  Here

    Before we get started, take this ointment.  It will help prevent infection.

    by Stevo on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:50:37 PM PDT

  •  I won't bite

    but I will challenge you for a moment.

    Abortion itself is an awful, horrible thing.

    
    ...from your view.  You go on to make the case all by yourself, quite well, of how it could be a form of salvation and release.

    cheers.
    

    by nepolon on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:06:08 PM PDT

    •  "Abortion itself"

      You have to separate the procedure from the decision.  I totally get people who feel relief from making the decision, although I don't personally know anyone like that.  (no hidden meaning there - I just don't know of anyone who's felt better after making the decision.  Just a comment on my personal experience.)

      But if the act itself gives you a sense of relief, I think there's something wrong with you.  It's an awful, horrible procedure.  That's my point.  

      by switzerblog on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:51:54 PM PDT

•  My Own Personal "Third Way"

  Ten to fifteen million real, live, breathing, crying children worldwide die of malnutrition and easily-cured diseases every year.

  For every ten of them, one American "unborn child" is aborted.

  For this reason I believe both sides of the abortion debate should go to Hell, for wasting everyone's time on this irrelevance for thirty-five years.

  Hey, it's a fresh take...

  by Irfo on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:56:19 PM PDT

  •  I Changed My Mind Already

    Abortion is an decision American women might face, so it has to be addressed politically as long there are those who want to enforce pregnancy by law.

    Ah well, have to find another way to feel all high and mighty...

    by Irfo on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:04:57 PM PDT

•  Having an abortion is a horrible experience

  It just is.  There is a ton of stuff in life that is incredibly unpleasant and down right horrible that we have to do from time to time.  It was a responsible and right decision for me and looking back I wouldn't change a thing, but it did suck. What kind of person would I be if I didn't take a decision like that seriously?

  My feelings about it being horrible have not changed my feelings about it remaining legal.  My personal understanding of the sadness that one can feel does not mean that I would back off for one second on protecting that right.  

  This debate kind of pisses me off because it seems like there are a lot of people trying to charcterize the experience who haven't even had an abortion.  Maybe they did and for them it was "fun", but I find that very hard to believe.  Taking the position that abortion should be a free and "fun" activity is bullshit.  Now I am being hyperbolic in a way, but I am saying that dismissing the sad part of the experience will offend me for one and certainly will not convert anyone who currently thinks that it should be made illegal.  It is not an authentic argument.

  I think that I should have the right to choose when and where I gestate.  I also think abortions should be free.  Furthermore, I think that every girl should be given a diaprham and a pack of condoms at the time she starts high school.  I think that she should be in charge of her body and should be able to choose who she shares that body with.  If she cannot share it with a baby then she should not have to.  I'd love it if she didn't have to go through an abortion and have horrible feelings as a result.  I would love for her to get pregnant when she wants to and is ready to not because of faulty birth control.  

  I carry no guilt - not one iota of guilt - that is not the horrible of which I speak - it was the experience of having to choose one thing over another at what was a cross-roads in my life.  It was hard.  There was an unidentifiable sadness that came with the experience.  But it was still the right decision to make for me.  Horrible doesn't make it wrong - it makes it a human experience like any other - don't forget there are humans - women - who actually go through this experience - this "medical procedure" and they have feelings about it.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find many women who had abortions who actually enjoyed it or looked fondly back on it.

  Here is what is good: Having control of my body and not having anyone else tell me how to take care of it.  These people want my eggs now for their "snowflake babies" - the issue of my choice is so much larger than just abortion - there is much more at stake than that one procedure.  

  I for one believe that the debate has to be taken to the level where all of the decisions that I make about my body are protected from these interfering freaks.  Arguing only the single issue of abortion just doesn't do enough for me or my sisters...  It has to be about my control in all areas with respect to my body.
  

  by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:15:38 PM PDT

  •  thank you for sharing

    and I hear the same message between us:  the important thing is to support the right to choose, the reasons to support that right should be reached personaly and we need to respect each other's paths in reaching our common ground.

    Did I characterize your feelings poorly?
    

    by nepolon on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:50:28 PM PDT

    •  No your characterization is fine

      I think the one thing that is top for me though is also honesty and truth about the issue.  I never ever talk about this experience and it is odd that I would choose to now.  But I felt it is the only way that I could be credible when I say that truth and honesty should not be sacrficed to the gods of framing.  

      I have this really open and supportive family who helped me through that decision.  What would have been trully horrible is to have not only been embattled by my own demons, but also to have battled other people around me at that time.  No one ever said it would be easy.  They just made sure I was safe and protected.

      Fondly enough my response to Markos' comment about it being "horrible" (before the firing squad) was to think that it was true and I was glad someone understood that feeling even if they can't ever really know.

      The only way that the Democratic Party can win the next round is to be authentic about what it believes.  We need to be real.  I also think we have to take all these issues surrounding women and put them in one basket and fight like hell to make sure none of the affronts we face are successfully excuted.  The GOP single-issue thing has done great dammage to our country.  Items on a list out of context get paraded around and before we know it we lose not only the item, but also the founding principle.  The principle is the real loss, not the item itself because without the principle there is no item.

      If we could convince every person male or female that they have a right to have the difinitive say over their own bodies, then we would be in a very good position on tons of issues.

      Thanks for your diary, I thought it was well written and reasoned.

      by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 06:20:40 PM PDT

•  There are stupid people.

  Some of them are female.

  Surprise, surprise.

  by Felix Deutsch on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:28:18 PM PDT

  •  and you are one of them.

    PKB

    by bellatrys on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:21:11 PM PDT

    •  Well, maybe it's not stupidity

      …but that's my first guess before suspecting malice.

      What's your explanation for the habit of inventing another persons supposed stance out of whole cloth, and then attacking it?

      One would be a logical fallacy used in dishonest argumentation: The strawman, uh, strawperson (wouldn't want to appear sexist here).
      

      by Felix Deutsch on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:16:00 PM PDT

      •  contrast

        "There are stupid people."

        with

        "What's your explanation for the habit of inventing another persons supposed stance out of whole cloth, and then attacking it?"

        cognitive dissonance is left as an exercise to the reader.

        by nepolon on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:48:18 PM PDT

        •  no analogy - no dissonance - you lose

          
          Calling someone stupid has nothing to do with using strawman logical fallacies.

          Stupidity is not a stance or something that can be (wrongfully) implied as being another persons argument to beat it down (strawman).

          by Felix Deutsch on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:04:26 PM PDT

          •  I see,

            so calling someone stupid isn't a demonstration of fabricating motivations for their actions out of whole cloth.  Got it.  Glad we understand each other.

            by nepolon on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:07:29 PM PDT

            •  good

              Just to emphathize:
              Stupidity isn't a motivation; suggesting someone is stupid (and therefore argues out of ignorance for the another person's stance) isn't miscontruing their argument to score an easy debate point (strawman).

              I just tried to be generous to the example you gave in the original diary along the lines of: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (also known as Hanlon's Razor).

              Now I admit that "stupid" might just be shorthand for the phenomenon described here, so I guess I'm guilty of sloppy writing.

              by Felix Deutsch on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:43:04 AM PDT

              •  sloppy writing happens

                it bothers me, however, when I see something that looks like this practiced by someone who then tries to then correct someone else's flawed argument.

                I don't know you from Bob, and was a bit puzzled by your initial reply.  I didn't know what you meant, but I know what it looked like from over here.

                You and I might disagree on whether or not attributing stupidity to someone else was a lazy simplification to explain their position (neigh, not "motivation" but I guess I was sloppy too).  I hardly see that as a significant difference worth us arguing over right now.  

                Cheers

                by nepolon on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:20:36 PM PDT

  •  I feel like I'm missing something here

    Who exactly are you referring to? What is your purpose in posting this kind of response?

    Is this meant to be helpful, or just sarcastic?

    I have my suspicions, but want to give you a chance to speak for yourself.

    by marathon on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:04:04 PM PDT

    •  Please

      …refer to my other response and especially to the link I gave in it.

      by Felix Deutsch on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:47:11 AM PDT

•  nepolon

  It's "Josiah Bartlet," by the way.

  by mattstan on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:32:56 PM PDT

  •  excellent

    catch.  It was an Easter egg.  Let's see how long it takes folks to call me on this new one... ;)

    by nepolon on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:52:53 PM PDT