Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.

?

Do I support the proposition? (see post #2)

Poll closed Nov 11, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    22.2%
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    5.6%
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

    44.4%
  4. Pro-choice: No

    16.7%
  5. Other (Please explain below)

    11.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    ElectricFetus:

    Now might be a good time to tell us all what you have learned about sexual harassment from your participation in this thread.

    Now might also be a good time to apologise to Bells.

    So...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yes I had no intention of telling Bells to give blowjobs I was only saying her actions, past tense and metaphorically where the equivalent to having given trolls blowjobs, it was in poor taste to make such a metaphor, I apologies, and I won't do it again.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So when Bells, Tiassa and several others grossly misrepresent other posters, verbally abuse them and lie about them, and demand from them to defend positions they have never stated or held to begin with --
    then this all alright?
    No harm done?
    No apology needed?

    We should just take it?
    We should be okay with it?
    We should be okay with being punished for things we've never done?

    Really?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wynn:

    This thread, and in particular the permanent banning of lightgigantic, is currently under discussion in the moderators' forum.

    One problem with this thread in general is that there has been no moderation at any point. Things have got out of hand.

    I would suggest that, following the treatment that Bells, in particular, has been subjected to by various posters in this thread, now would not be a good time for your to stick your head up and start complaining about her. Do so at your own risk.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The treatment that Bells has been subjected to?

    The treatment that Bells has been subjected to?

    The treatment that Bells has been subjected to????


    Bells has been abusing people here and in other threads, and received no penalty whatsoever, ever!!!!

    She is the one who starts the abuse. We only returned a small fraction of what she is doing.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wynn:

    I've read the thread in its entirety. I'm well aware of who said what and what was said.

    Nobody in this thread received any penalty whatsoever for inappropriate comments or behaviour - right up to the point where LG was permabanned.

    I'm working through that particular aspect at the moment.

    Once again, I strongly suggest that you save your complaints for later.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    wow - I usually read posts by James I happen to notice. - why I came here now for first time. All I can say is I'm thankful I only moderate Business and Economics - you know unimportant dull subjects

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It's a lithopedion, not a live fetus. Lithopedia begin with the death of a fetus that can not be expelled and is too big to be absorbed. The body calcifies the dead fetus to protect itself from the dead tissue and infection.

    removing said lithopedian has more in common with removing a benign tumor or passing a kidney stone than having an abortion.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And you posted that as if it something to do with Bells's posting, and was relevant to the thread, neither of which was so and one of which was part of the harassment problem here (the other being part of the relevance problem).

    Allow me to join several others in asserting that, in my opinion, you have. You have downplayed the clarity and flagrancy of the harassment, for starters, and "overlooked" the existence of the overall pattern even after it was pointed out to you explicitly, and in a couple of other ways - highlighted by Bells quite cogent posts - deflected consideration of the actual nature of the posting here.

    In a forum such as this one, and especially and explicitly in a thread in which the implications of holding "lives" to be "sacrosanct" from "the moment of conception" is exactly and explicitly the thread topic, any "rabid pro-lifer" who adopts such posting as their "standard" should be reminded of the several violations of forum policy they thereby commit - and when they persist, dealt with firmly by any handy moderator.

    You can't support one standard of argument for "rabid pro-lifers", and another for their targets and the rest of the forum participants. There's no reason to give such posters special privileges.

    That is not obvious. Bells's interpretation of your "advice" - to ignore such posting as we see here, and not respond, because that is not her proper role - is an ordinary and reasonable one, and not obviously false or even exaggerated.

    Your motives are your own business, and no one is questioning them. Your cutting slack for objectionable and inexcusable posting by some folks, while giving "advice" and warnings to sane and reasonable posting by others, is at issue. Your deflection into discussion of "motive", and imputation of such invalid consideration to others, is part of that issue.

    But as a result of his long and consistent history of posting here - which you have been repeatedly asked to consider - it's well justified and long over due. I am not the only poster who, after being subjected to LG's tactics, has pointed out that his posting here appears calculated and premeditated. This is far from the first or only thread in which LG (and a couple of others in his chorus here and elsewhere) has been granted "lack of moderation" for some reason mysterious to me. You should not pretend that the only factor in a decision to ban that poster is a couple of recent posts: they were completely in character and consistent with many months of LG's contributions here.
     
  14. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I posted that comment in response to Bell’s claim that I accused her of wanting to kill babies.
    If you’d care to read the exchanges between Bell’s and myself, you’ll see and hopefully understand the evolution of our contention and its relevance to the thread.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    To be clear, once again, I don't want babies murdered. Considering what I spent a lot of my adult life doing for a living, you couldn't be more wrong.

    I'll explain my dry foot policy and hopefully this will put your mind at ease or answer questions that have been answered but was misunderstood and misrepresented and misconstrued.

    My dry foot policy that I support is that a woman always has rights over her person and her body. That is integral. While she is pregnant, that basic and fundamental human right does not fade. In that regard, I do not believe that an unborn child can have personhood rights while it is inside her body, the reason being is not that it does not deserve it, but because history has shown that when it is legally defined as a "person", then women do die.

    You made some comments in this thread which were troubling. For example, saying that maybe women get a kick out of getting an abortion and the manner in which you seem to believe that women do not think about what it is they are doing when they get an abortion. All evidence points to the contrary. No woman wants to or would get a kick out of having contractions for 3 days and being in absolute pain for that length of time, nor would a woman or girl seek out such an option without consideration of what it is they are doing. No one aborts a viable foetus on a whim. Women have abortions for a variety of reasons, it is not done because she changed her mind right before it's due. 3rd trimester abortions, as has been explained many times now, are exceptionally rare and the reasons have been listed and linked numerous times, and I don't plan on linking it again.

    Now, you seem to be of the belief that I was advocating that a woman could be popping out the baby and decide to abort it, or change her mind after it is born and stuff it back in and abort it then. You seemed to become angry and offended when I refused to give any credence to such ridiculous notions. I will say this now. I won't take impossible and ridiculous arguments seriously. If you are going to dream up an impossible scenario in a what if situation that cannot happen in reality, then I will never assign it to what I may believe or support. If you dream up something that cannot happen and does not happen in reality, then I'm sorry, but at no time will I say 'oh yes I would support that because I support the dry foot policy'. My stance is based off what happens in reality, not in what if situations.

    That does not mean a woman can legally abort a baby whenever she wants. I linked you an interview with one of the very few abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions. The moment that it comes even close to full term, she will not abort it. I also don't see a woman in labour changing her mind and trying to find an abortionist aborting her baby - perhaps the exception was the hack who was a murderer, but no one does that. My dry foot policy is based on what happens in real life and in reality. In other words, what I believe does not even come close to some of the things you were making up and attributing to me. Why? Because what you were making up does not happen in reality. If one day we get to a point of insanity and there are doctors who are willing to abort a woman's pregnancy when she is at full term and about to deliver, then we can have that discussion. But I am not going to entertain something that is not even a possibility.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I read them. They motivated the post, there - this: "And you posted that as if it something to do with Bells's posting, and was relevant to the thread, neither of which was so and one of which was part of the harassment problem here (the other being part of the relevance problem)."

    Having affirmed my judgment, that you did indeed post that with the intention of it referring to Bells' posting and under the delusion that it was relevant to the thread, you can have no objection to my removing the "as if", and tightening the comment to this: You posted that garbage intending direct response to Bells's posting, and as relevant to this thread, neither of which was achieved; one of which was part of the harassment problem here, and the other part of the relevance problem.

    Sunlight may disinfect, stagelight does not.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    iceaura:

    I point out that lightgigantic had 16000 posts on this forum. He has received no official warning from any moderator since back in 2009, nor has he been temporarily banned over the same period. I am concerned that applying an unflagged and permanent ban to him denies him natural justice.

    You refer to a consistent pattern of behaviour. Is this a pattern of harassment of women, or of trolling, or what?

    I wonder why no moderator has thought fit to pull lightgigantic up on his aborrent behaviour in the past 5 years.

    Why was the current thread not closed when it became apparent that the trolls had taken over, if that was indeed the case? There were several moderators on the ground at the time.

    Why were there no reports submitted about the harassing behaviour, by anybody participating in the thread?

    Correct. I'm not advocating any kind of double standard. I'm quite firmly pro-choice myself, as it happens, so if I were inclined to show bias it would seem more likely that I would support those with whom I agree, don't you think?

    While there was discussion among the moderators during the course of this thread, as far as I am aware, none of the general posters, yourself included, raised any kind of official complaint about the behaviour that was going on.

    Well, I hope we're clear on that now. The record shows that Bells has been quite vocal thoughout the course of this thread, and I have at no point said that she should not be.

    Where have I talked about Bell's "proper role" in all this?

    Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. I am not disputing that LG deserved a ban. I just think that a permanent ban is not warranted, for reasons I think I have explained in this public thread, and which I have explained in great detail in the Moderators' forum.

    Clearly, you think that a permanent ban is justified for LG. I'm not sure what you think about the behaviour of the various other participants in this thread, and what punishment would be appropriate for them.

    And do you have any concerns about the way the pro-choice advocates here have put their side of the case? Or have they all acted in an unimpeachable fashion?

    In five years he has never been officially warned by any moderator about his "long and consistent history" of unacceptable posts. And then, all of sudden, out of the blue, suddenly it's "Oops! We're going to ban you now because we've decided that we really don't like the way you post after all. While your particular behaviour this time might not cut it for a permanent ban, we're willing to look back and find reasons retrospectively in order to make the charges stick."

    And then we get the inevitable rush of supporters who don't like the guy coming out of the woodwork saying "I said all along that he was a bad egg and had to go! Good riddance!"

    Calculated and premeditated to do what, exactly?

    Is there something there apart from expressing views that you stridently disagree with on topics such as religion and abortion?

    It's as much a mystery to me, if he really has the kind of record you claim he has. Why no reports? Why no moderation from anybody? He can't have been seen as a problem worth devoting any time and effort to, apparently.

    I don't need to pretend. Tiassa is on record as saying that he banned lightgigantic for a 15 month record of unacceptable posts - posts that had as a matter of fact been accepted right up to when he was banned.
     
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Then the question, in my mind, is thus:

    Do we have or apply a "statue of limitations" here? Should we not consider a history of, admittedly unaudited, behavior?

    I mean, speaking of auditing... lets take the IRS for example - if they look back over records and come to realize that, over the course of 15 months, you hadn't paid ANY taxes... do you not think they would come to collect on said taxes?
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You misunderstand James. There had always been a quiet policy of not moderating the people we do not like. I would say it was more a level of apathy and wishing to avoid this level of conflict of interest. It is also possibly why no one intervened in this thread, because everyone sided with a particular side or the other and weighing in could constitute a conflict of interest. Over the years, I would imagine most of the moderators have participated in this thread, supporting one side of this debate over the other.

    You admit to being strongly pro-choice. If you stepped in and moderated someone who from the outset declared that to him personally, life did begin at conception, then that individual could turn around and tell you that you moderated him because you disagree with his position. Perhaps this might make you understand why I and the rest of us, for that matter, were so hesitant to moderate and also because we were so deeply involved in this discussion.

    We all knew that some of what was being said here was out of line. We all clearly stated it as such and recorded it as a matter of course and record. It's hard to remain unmoved when you repeatedly show facts, scientific studies, survey's, interviews and it is twisted around and misrepresented and lied about and fanciful 'what if scenarios' come to the fore and you are then accused because you don't take those scenarios seriously. Especially when this is done repeatedly. Should we have stepped in? Yes. But if we did and shut down that level of dishonesty, then we would still be here, right where we are now, discussing this as we are. LG's years of transgressions were never acceptable. How you could think we found them acceptable is beyond me. We all just couldn't stand him enough to moderate him. If you want the absolute truth, that is it.

    We are not machines, nor are we like Spock. We do have emotions. Just as you had emotions when certain members here took to you with pitchforks and misrepresented you and made spurious comparisons and accusations and you banned them for it. You didn't simply just take it and not respond. You banned them and in one instance, one of the other moderators banned them on your behalf.

    To be clear, at no time did I request LG to be banned, or EF to be moderated. I reported sexual harassment and the other moderators were reviewing it and discussing what course of action should be taken. No one asked anyone to ban anyone. We certainly did not ask you to step in and review my complaint in public and we certainly did not ask you to question me in public about whether I truly felt sexually harassed. To my knowledge, none of us asked for your involvement in this issue.

    But rest assured, I will never report sexual harassment again. Next time this happens, and there will be a next time, as there always is with such issues on any forum, I will simply moderate from the outset, whether I like the individual or not. The last time I reported sexual harassment towards myself and a few other women who posted here, no one did anything about it for weeks, because historically, nothing was ever really done about such things in the past. It was swept under the carpet and ignored. If someone lies and distorts facts and misrepresents studies and trolls as they have done repeatedly here, then they will be moderated as per the rules of this site. The protection I afforded to those I do not like is now non-existent for me personally and I would imagine, for many of my colleagues.
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    *Emphasis mine.

    Well Bells again I will point out that your dry foot model has ethical inconsistencies, on the one hand you say women always have rights over their body then on the other you say that doctors have authority to deny women rights over their body, that thanks to this authority extremely later term abortions are impossible, how do you reconcile that? Just saying a women always has rights over her body and then saying she can't legally abort a baby whenever she wants is inconsistent, for if she can't then she does not always have rights over her body, and if she always has rights over her body then she can legally abort a baby whenever she wants.
     
  21. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Bells, I seriously don’t believe you want to kill babies, but from a conservative interpretation of my perspective, the policy that you advocate could be interpreted as leading to that outcome.

    I understand the need for protecting the health of pregnant women, but I also believe that a once a fetus reaches a distinct level of consciousness, it deserves some consideration in regards to its right to live. Where exactly that point occurs during pregnancy is open for debate. It could be as early as 22 weeks, or conceivably postnatal. My argument errs on the early side, and unfortunately would complicate the desires of a woman to terminate late. In any case I don’t think women should be required to unreasonably sacrifice their health to save a fetus. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies would be prevented, negating their associated medical and social costs.

    I believe I acknowledged the fact that women don’t their kicks from abortions.
    Circumstances in life lead to multitudes of unwanted outcomes; some are more avoidable than others. At least in modern societies getting pregnant should be in the avoidable category, but unfortunately social conditioning hasn’t yet achieved that goal, and until it does there will be a need to deal with the undesirable consequences of pregnancy at all stages. I ‘m fully aware that there are women with legitimate medical need for late termination, but there are also some who don’t. I wish there was better documentation on the late term cases so we could better understand the issue.

    I used an extreme interpretation of Tiassa’s dry foot policy, that personhood begins at umbilical severance. I then used an extreme example to expose the implication of that stance. I considered the obvious point to be, would a reversal of condition result in a reversal of rights. I was somewhat amazed that it wasn’t understood as intended. Whether out of misunderstanding, or ideological posturing from both our sides, the whole discussion seemed to stray in various pointless directions early on.

    Like I mentioned earlier, I wish there was more documentation of these late term cases so we could effectively analyze the reality of it all. The medical reality is that some late term abortion procedures essentially mirror delivery procedures, with the difference being the mortality of the fetus. We both know that the Dr. Gosnell’s of the industry might be inclined to accommodate such late term desperation. We also both know that pregnant women will kill their babies at birth, and I would think it likely that somewhere along the line that doctors may have assisted. I never said or expected that you personally condone such action, but did imply that an extreme interpretation of your dry foot policy could legitimize it.

    Get you eyes and/or comprehension checked.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't have to "think", or estimate "likelihood", or engage in motive guessing - I have the example of the standards right in front of me, for many months.
    I can only speak for myself, but my reason was lack of confidence in your judgment and that of the other moderators, based on past experiences with your evaluations of such tactics by such posters.

    Here's another example:
    James, I quoted one of the several responses by you (choosing a sufficient one) that I thought completely justified Bells interpretation. Quoted, right in the post, and directly referenced. And you ask that question, without even a pass at dealing with the reference and post? Dude, that's trolling. By you.
    1) The factions involved here are not divisible so, without complaint - EF, for one, has been repeatedly and stridently vocal about that. 2) Nobody objecting to LG's, EF's, Wynn's, etc, posting has engaged in anything remotely approaching LG's etc routine level of despicable rhetoric and bad faith posting tactics. That does not mean, require, suggest, or imply, as you attempt to frame things, that any of them are "unimpeachable"; and that kind of response by you is part of the problem here.

    From where are you coming up with that kind of innuendo? And why?

    And I keep reading them, like this:
    A post describing that bullshit as an "interpretation" of what Bells posted is not at all difficult to comprehend.

    In the future, when you "sincerely don't believe" something, and it's a personal attack, and it's an ad hominem fallacy, and the entire claim you are pushing with this stupid insult you don't believe and ad hominem argument you regard as somebody else's interpretation is completely irrelevant to the thread topic, how about you don't post it? Just a suggestion.
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I know this is highly inappropriate as a moderator to say... but I'm going to say it anyway...

    Capracus... would you like some ice for that burn?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page