A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

I think we can safely rule Capracus' arguments/suggestions out as some kind of deranged outlier... especially given his apparent desire to simply make women into property (or at least, so it seems).

I do think that perhaps some better birth-control options need to be found though - as far as I am aware, the only non-permanent option for the male to utilize is the condom, which has its own share of issues (allergy to the material, can break, if you are inebriated or otherwise not in a "normal" frame of mind, you could potentially not use it right) - perhaps a birth control pill for men that would render the sperm non-viable whilst taking it? Dunno if such a thing is possible to be honest...

Oh he is advocating domestic abuse in the other thread..

As for birth control, one of the biggest hurdles women face is access to birth control. Between laws that permit pharmacists and doctors to not supply or prescribe them on religious grounds, to the cost involved for women who are uninsured, it is not always easy. Remember the panel convened by a bunch of men who wished to discuss birth control? And the young woman who was publicly abused for stating that it should be affordable and should be covered for all women to access it? There is a concerted effort to make birth control even harder to access.

Not to mention the lack of sex education and the fact that girls are less likely to be taught about the options available when it comes to birth control, leading to many poor and disadvantaged women not being aware or being able to access it. Yet we know that access to free birth control reduces unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. The same applies to emergency contraception. This should be widely available to women. Yet there is a growing movement against that as well, with many pro-lifer's referring to it as an abortion. The classic is the claim that using IUD's murders 'babies' because fertilisation (and thus life) commences in the fallopian tube and the IUD prevents the implantation of the "child" into the uterus, and thus, it is murder..

 

[GeoffP]

Oh he is advocating domestic abuse in the other thread..

I beg your pardon? And you're claiming that you've been misrepresented?

 

[Bells]

I beg your pardon? And you're claiming that you've been misrepresented?

Are you aware that domineering and controlling women, emotional abuse, controlling their birth control, making them have pregnancy tests, constitutes as domestic abuse? No?

Guessing you did not?

Which is what he said should be the solution because apparently women are incapable of doing it properly themselves since they are irresponsible, etc...

I mean sure, of course you are going to defend that position..

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Are you aware that domineering and controlling women, emotional abuse, controlling their birth control, making them have pregnancy tests, constitutes as domestic abuse? No?

Guessing you did not?

Which is what he said should be the solution because apparently women are incapable of doing it properly themselves since they are irresponsible, etc...

I mean sure, of course you are going to defend that position..

Which other thread???

 

[Bells]

Which other thread???

An abortion thread in EM&J..

I would hope that Capracus was pulling yet another one of his going to extremes to try to make a point of some sort or other, if not, then it paints a disturbing picture.

 

[Tiassa]

An Obvious Point That Shouldn't Need Making

I would hope that Capracus was pulling yet another one of his going to extremes to try to make a point of some sort or other, if not, then it paints a disturbing picture.

And then there is the proposition that we continue to take such bizarre digressions as serious arguments, because if we acknowledge that they are not, certain people need to be specifically and forcibly excluded from the discussion insofar as their most apparent goal is to disrupt or even preclude it.

They can certainly claim that their dedicated efforts to distract, disrupt, and digress are being misrepresented because they're not actually making sincere arguments, but I don't think that will help them much.

 

[GeoffP]

Cite for your right to parity

Are you aware that domineering and controlling women, emotional abuse

Interesting. Please cite where he did the above.

, controlling their birth control, making them have pregnancy tests, constitutes as domestic abuse? No?

From Wiki, the cornerstone of all truths utterable and unutterable:

Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, dating abuse, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pattern of behavior which involves the abuse by one partner against another in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating or within the family.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

So Capracus is suggesting the above? Where is this?

Guessing you did not?

Let's cement your definitions and citations before you accuse people of advocating 'domestic abuse'.

Which is what he said should be the solution because apparently women are incapable of doing it properly themselves since they are irresponsible, etc...

I mean sure, of course you are going to defend that position..

Ah, more character assassination. Water off a ducks' back, really. Childish.

 

[!!!!!batman!!!!!]

Then we aren't talking about the same thing.

that may very well be, but as a basic definition of god i feel "all that is or was or ever will be" which can be generally described as the universe it self, to be adequate basis of description

 

[!!!!!batman!!!!!]

something im not understanding about the contraception debate is from the womens perspective is that, as a general rule most people most of the time want as much control over any given situation as they can possibly have. why wouldn't they want to be the one in control in this situation, as opposed to blaming men for not taking enough initiative on the matter.

 

[Bells]

Interesting. Please cite where he did the above.



From Wiki, the cornerstone of all truths utterable and unutterable:

Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, dating abuse, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pattern of behavior which involves the abuse by one partner against another in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating or within the family.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

So Capracus is suggesting the above? Where is this?



Let's cement your definitions and citations before you accuse people of advocating 'domestic abuse'.



Ah, more character assassination. Water off a ducks' back, really. Childish.

To be clear, this is what you are now defending:

Ok, let’s leave it up to the men. Men can now require all sexual partners to submit to monthly pregnancy tests and be given the right to terminate as well. Problem solved.

And you are claiming this would not be men controlling or domineering women? That men determining and being given the right over the woman's body to control even abortions and worse, men now taking up the right to terminate her pregnancy is not domestic abuse? You do realise that even tampering with her birth control is domestic abuse? How do you figure that men giving themselves the right to terminate her pregnancy does not qualify as domestic abuse?

You don't see that as being abusive?

Riiigghhhttt...

Whatever you say GeoffP.

I dare you to tell your wife that you demand that she must now submit a pregnancy test to you every month. Go on, I dare you. In fact, go to your local police station and tell them that you plan on controlling your wife in this way and that it will now be up to you to terminate her pregnancy as well. See how well you go. If you do it to your spouse or partner, it is domestic abuse. If you do it to random women or women around you, it just makes you a misogynistic twat who commits acts of violence against women. Or is this going to be yet another example of your views like when you were trying to make excuses for why men rape and asking if rape is really the right word?

 

[Tiassa]

Brief Notes

something im not understanding about the contraception debate is from the womens perspective is that, as a general rule most people most of the time want as much control over any given situation as they can possibly have. why wouldn't they want to be the one in control in this situation, as opposed to blaming men for not taking enough initiative on the matter.

In truth, you're going to have to be a little more specific on this one, Bruce.

that may very well be, but as a basic definition of god i feel "all that is or was or ever will be" which can be generally described as the universe it self, to be adequate basis of description

The question of the Unmoved Mover, the Unnamed Namer, has been around at least since ancient Greece. However, given that the debates about God taking place in the twenty first century generally focus on a much smaller idea, you'll find that invoking this totality will often result in accusations that you are somehow worshiping a shoebox deity conceived in seminal human neuroses. You know, the kind of God that is placed by the Gideons in the nightstand drawer of a red-light motel with hourly rates.

In other words, many who complain about religion stack the deck against solutions so that they might simply keep complaining. It's a political form of job security.

 

[!!!!!batman!!!!!]

in regards to post 2071 one the first point brought up i would like to clarify that i was speaking out in regards to the feminist movement and that pushing the issue on to men after years of fighting for this issue is similar to fighting for years for the privilege of having a drivers license, learning how to drive, and then demanding that they be allowed to be a passenger. as for the second point, assuming that god exists how does one exactly limit such an entity. focusing on a smaller idea in my opinion is like calling a local area network the internet.

 

[GeoffP]

To be clear, this is what you are now defending:

You have not provided citation of your assertions. Please cite your assertions. This is the second time I've asked for this. Furthermore, you will now have to provide evidence of how I'm "defending" such views.

Or is this going to be yet another example of your views like when you were trying to make excuses for why men rape and asking if rape is really the right word?

Flat-out abuse: reported. It would be a coward and a liar that made such statements protected by their status on this forum, particularly as the thread in question makes no such assertions. It is difficult to say whether you are more unethical or more dishonest; perhaps the two are tied in more tightly than a reasonable person can make sense of them.

 

[Bells]

You have not provided citation of your assertions. Please cite your assertions. This is the second time I've asked for this. Furthermore, you will now have to provide evidence of how I'm "defending" such views.

You are actually going to argue that a man domineering his spouse (or her spouse for that matter, if it is a female abuser) to the point where they make their partner submit to monthly pregnancy tests is not controlling or abusive? You do not think it would be coercive?

Straws.. Must.. Be.. Clutched..

You are actually demanding citation that it would be domestic abuse for a man to be given the right to terminate his wife's pregnancy without her consent? Since you know, if the guy is given the right to terminate over that of the woman, it would hardly constitute has her choice and her consent, lacking or not would be irrelevant. And you require citation that this would constitute domestic abuse?

Wow, perhaps you really are that desperate to defend the indefensible..

Characteristics

Domestic violence perpetrators:

• seek control of the thoughts, beliefs and conduct of their partner.
• restrict all of the victim's rights and freedoms

Men who batter:

• believe they are entitled control their partner

Are you going to argue that a man demanding that his wife submits pregnancy tests every month would not fit the bill of control and restricting her rights and freedoms?


Now from the National Domestic Violence Hotline - domestic abuse also encompasses reproductive coercion:

Reproductive coercion is a form of power and control where one partner strips the other of the ability to control their own reproductive system. It is sometimes difficult to identify this coercion because other forms of abuse are often occurring simultaneously.

Reproductive coercion can be exerted in many ways:

• Refusing to use a condom or other type of birth control
• Breaking or removing a condom during intercourse
• Lying about their methods of birth control (ex. lying about having a vasectomy, lying about being on the pill)
• Refusing to “pull out” if that is the agreed upon method of birth control
• Forcing you to not use any birth control (ex. the pill, condom, shot, ring, etc.)
• Removing birth control methods (ex. rings, IUDs, contraceptive patches)
• Sabotaging birth control methods (ex. poking holes in condoms, tampering with pills or flushing them down the toilet)
• Withholding finances needed to purchase birth control
• Monitoring your menstrual cycles
  [*] Forcing pregnancy and not supporting your decision about when or if you want to have a child
  [*] Forcing you to get an abortion, or preventing you from getting one
• Threatening you or acting violent if you don’t comply with their wishes to either end or continue a pregnancy
• Continually keeping you pregnant (getting you pregnant again shortly after you give birth)

Note the bold bits.. All part of 'abuse defined' by the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Perhaps now you can explain why you are defending an argument that is defined as domestic abuse? Or are you going to claim that a man controlling a woman's reproductive choices to the point where it is his right to terminate the pregnancy and to make that choice and not hers is not abusive?

Flat-out abuse: reported. It would be a coward and a liar that made such statements protected by their status on this forum, particularly as the thread in question makes no such assertions. It is difficult to say whether you are more unethical or more dishonest; perhaps the two are tied in more tightly than a reasonable person can make sense of them.

Excellent.

Perhaps you can now explain why you are defending domestic abuse? And about that rape comment. How is it abuse exactly when you had entered a thread about rape and asked if it really should be called rape or if it is something else?

 

[GeoffP]

Get out from under the bridge much?

You are actually going to argue that a man domineering his spouse (or her spouse for that matter, if it is a female abuser) to the point where they make their partner submit to monthly pregnancy tests is not controlling or abusive? You do not think it would be coercive?

We haven't even got to the point where you can misrepresent me. And you're already running?

Here's what was requested:

You have not provided citation of your assertions. Please cite your assertions. This is the second time I've asked for this. Furthermore, you will now have to provide evidence of how I'm "defending" such views.

I am asking where this comment of Capracus' occurs. Do you understand now? WHERE IS THIS COMMENT? CITE IT. I cannot make this more clear, I feel. I could put it in bigger print, I suppose.

Straws.. Must.. Be.. Clutched..

I'll bet they must, but do it elsewhere.

You are actually demanding citation that it would be domestic abuse for a man to be given the right to terminate his wife's pregnancy without her consent? Since you know, if the guy is given the right to terminate over that of the woman, it would hardly constitute has her choice and her consent, lacking or not would be irrelevant. And you require citation that this would constitute domestic abuse?

No. Let's try again since now you seem to be wavering back and forth here. You think or are pretending you think that I want you to cite issues of domestic abuse. I am not. I am demanding that you cite where Capracus expresses this opinion. I am demanding that you link this statement. That is and was the ENTIRETY of my post.

Wow, perhaps you really are that desperate to defend the indefensible..

Bells.

I am not responsible for your apparent inability to read, or your paranoia, or your persecution complex.

I am asking you to link the statement in which Capracus says these things. That is the sum of my request. I am not here to do your homework for you. And perhaps that was my real mistake.

Perhaps you can now explain why you are defending domestic abuse? And about that rape comment. How is it abuse exactly when you had entered a thread about rape and asked if it really should be called rape or if it is something else?

Added to the report. This is ridiculous. This is the second or third trolling offense now.

 

[Bells]

We haven't even got to the point where you can misrepresent me. And you're already running?

Here's what was requested:



I am asking where this comment of Capracus' occurs. Do you understand now? WHERE IS THIS COMMENT? CITE IT. I cannot make this more clear, I feel. I could put it in bigger print, I suppose.



I'll bet they must, but do it elsewhere.



No. Let's try again since now you seem to be wavering back and forth here. You think or are pretending you think that I want you to cite issues of domestic abuse. I am not. I am demanding that you cite where Capracus expresses this opinion. I am demanding that you link this statement. That is and was the ENTIRETY of my post.



Bells.

I am not responsible for your apparent inability to read, or your paranoia, or your persecution complex.

I am asking you to link the statement in which Capracus says these things. That is the sum of my request. I am not here to do your homework for you. And perhaps that was my real mistake.



Added to the report. This is ridiculous. This is the second or third trolling offense now.

You can't read?

If you look at where I first quoted it in this thread, you will see that I actually linked it.

So how can you tell there is a link embedded in the post? Since it seems clear you do not know or understand how this works...

A quick run down for you.. When you see a piece of text that is underlined and has a blue (it's blue on my screen) colour and you mouse over it and you get a little pointing finger hand symbol, that means it is a link and you can click on it.

The little pointing hand symbol looks like this:

That is what your mouse pointer looks like when it mouses over a link (for most computer systems). An embedded link on sciforums is usually underlined and has a different coloured text and when you mouse over it, it turns into the little hand that I provided you with a picture of.

Now, I embedded the link above where I first posted that quote in this thread and provided the link to the 'source'. I'll do it step by step for you so you understand....

Step 1

Take your mouse pointer, and mouse over the link above.

Step 2

Left click on the link with your mouse.

Step 3

It will open a new page and show you when I originally posted the quote in this thread.

Step 4

The post has two links embedded in it. Take your mouse and move it to the underlined and blue coloured words "he came out with this gem"

Step 5

Left click on it with your mouse.

Step 6

This will now open the exact post where the quote was originally made.

Step 7

Scroll down (you can use your mouse wheel, page down button on your keyboard or the down arrow on the right hand side of your screen) until you get to the second last comment by him in that post.

Step 8

Read his words...




Do.. You.. See.. It.. Now?

Do I need to draw you an illustrated model?

 

[GeoffP]

Clarity at last

You can't read?

If you look at where I first quoted it in this thread, you will see that I actually linked it.

That really doesn't matter, Bells. You need to produce the citation when I ask for it, as you know full well. You referred me to no other post even after repeated requests. That's a violation of SF rules. I realise it came as a sudden shock to you when you found out you were wrong - yet again - about your suppositions (or maybe what you were doing was actually deliberate; it's hard to say) but it doesn't excuse trying to shuffle it off on the other party.

Now that you finally posted the link that I asked for again and again until I had to actually explain what asking for a link was, your case falls flat. First, Capracus' statement, if it actually means what you suggest it does, would be the advocacy of general misogyny or the like, not domestic violence specifically. I imagine you used the phrase because you thought it would have more punch, which is cynical and unethical. It is weasel wording.

Second, it is my strong suspicion that Capracus was playing an actual Devil's Advocate with that post. I've seen what your interpretation has been capable of in the past - your most recent examples include accusing me of trying to excuse rape, and of defending domestic violence - so it's reasonable to conclude that your interpretation has failed here also, or else been deliberately misread. But thanks for finally posting the link. I leave it up to Capracus to further explain himself in this regard.

Now, for the important parts vis-a-vis myself: I require an apology, in full, for your accusation that I i) tried to excuse rape and ii) defended domestic violence. To be clear, these accusations occur here. They are both false, and we both know that. You would not dare make any such accusations in a fairly moderated forum, of course, because you know full well what would happen to you. Now's the time to play fair. I await your apologies.

 

[Bells]

That really doesn't matter, Bells. You need to produce the citation when I ask for it, as you know full well. You referred me to no other post even after repeated requests. That's a violation of SF rules. I realise it came as a sudden shock to you when you found out you were wrong - yet again - about your suppositions (or maybe what you were doing was actually deliberate; it's hard to say) but it doesn't excuse trying to shuffle it off on the other party.

Now that you finally posted the link that I asked for again and again until I had to actually explain what asking for a link was, your case falls flat. First, Capracus' statement, if it actually means what you suggest it does, would be the advocacy of general misogyny or the like, not domestic violence specifically. I imagine you used the phrase because you thought it would have more punch, which is cynical and unethical. It is weasel wording.

Second, it is my strong suspicion that Capracus was playing an actual Devil's Advocate with that post. I've seen what your interpretation has been capable of in the past - your most recent examples include accusing me of trying to excuse rape, and of defending domestic violence - so it's reasonable to conclude that your interpretation has failed here also, or else been deliberately misread. But thanks for finally posting the link. I leave it up to Capracus to further explain himself in this regard.

Now, for the important parts vis-a-vis myself: I require an apology, in full, for your accusation that I i) tried to excuse rape and ii) defended domestic violence. To be clear, these accusations occur here. They are both false, and we both know that. You would not dare make any such accusations in a fairly moderated forum, of course, because you know full well what would happen to you. Now's the time to play fair. I await your apologies.

I already had provided the citation.


Your suspicions mean nothing to me. You continuously defended his comments, falsely accused me of not linking it when I had. Just because you cannot read or click on links, well, that is not really my problem.


As for my comments about your issues understanding rape and how you defended comments that encouraged domestic violence..

When you enter a thread about rape, it is best to not umm and ahh about 'is it really rape though?' and comments alluding to that perhaps rape is not the best way to describe rape, and then attempting to make excuses that perhaps it is simply the male following a biological urge or is simply feeling lust when he rapes a woman and then pontificating about the biological trigger for "illicit sex" when describing rape, despite clear evidence that you are wrong. You posted all of this, of course, in response to others admonishing another poster, a well known rape advocate I might add, who claimed that men rape women because they find them sexy and "can't screw any other way". I still do not know or understand what actually drove you to post what you did, but you did it and you ignored years and years of research which all clearly prove that you are wrong. In fact, when you were provided with this information, you still kept claiming that you were correct.

 

[Trooper]

Before we spiral into silence, let’s do a little recap, shall we? How did all of this get started? Well, going back to the original OP, Tiassa called us out, said that we were deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult. He linked his pharisaic narrow-minded blog, in which he capped on Capracus by deliberately misrepresenting his intention. It was, well, just a bit hypocritical to say the least. And then he had the audacity to imply that I was mentally impaired.

I am a pro-choice, anti-abortion atheist, who wants to protect the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows states to ban elective third-trimester abortions but not therapeutic late-term abortions.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

A few states have trigger laws on abortion to make the practice automatically illegal if the landmark case Roe v. Wade is overturned. The essential holding of Roe v. Wade should stand but the Hyde Amendment allows states to limit the funding of abortions under Medicaid. This so-called dry foot policy isn't about the funding, though. It’s about personhood, selfhood, subjectivity, ego, to be precise, Tiassa’s ego.

Even if we decided that a fetus isn't a person, that doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn't a person.

And now that atheism and abortion have come full circle.

What would Austin do?

Spoiler

Many may assume that a proper definition of "person" would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.

It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue.

This doesn't mean that the status of the fetus is completely irrelevant or that debates about whether the fetus is a "person" are uninteresting. Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical (even if we think it should remain legal) and what sorts of restrictions we think should be placed on those choosing to have an abortion. If the fetus is a person, then abortion may still be justified and outlawing abortion may be unjustified, but the fetus could still deserve protections and respect of some sort.

Respect, perhaps, is the issue which deserves much more attention than it currently receives. Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the "culture of life" has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous.

After meeting Tiassa and his crony, who in their right mind would not favor abortion?

 

[Bells]

After meeting Tiassa and his crony, who in their right mind would not favor abortion?

Nice.. Very classy.

Fear not, my little poster girl for birth control, you may get your wish soon enough.

The man who raped me 2 weeks ago in my home is out on bail and intent on harming me again. So put on those red shoes and tap them 3 times and make your wish. You might just have it come true. Would you like his phone number so you can cheer him on? You seem like just the type.