Freethought & Rationalism Archive

livius drusus · 02-23-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Clarice... Livius is an individual who made a federal case out of some of us protesting the posting of cartoons with explicit sexual content without any previous warning in one of the Philosophy forums. The post was out of context and removed by the Administration to be placed back in the Freethinking Humor.

You never answered me when I asked you in my follow-up thread what your definition of explicit is. I now see it includes fully clothed, sexually positioned religious figures but excludes bleeding deformed fetuses. My definition includes things like actual body parts and penetration which applies to sex acts as well as to a fetus and cut-open mother.

Quote:

So I am neither insensitive or ignorant but rather aware of the consistant nags Livius has been taking at Amie. I agree that adding the word " graphic " in the OP would prevent a person who is truly and genuinely impressed by surgery pictures to view it.

I have had very limited dealings with Amie. But even if I did follow her around antagonizing with the same passion Infinity Lover deploys in her defense, that would not mean that therefore any point I make is invalid. As you acknowledge yourself, I was right that the picture should have been labelled as potentially disturbing. You cast aspersions on my motivations as if that justifies your and Amie's instant dismissal of my reaction, but your justifications are insufficient.

Quote:

Knowing Amie she will have no problem adding a warning.

She refused to add a warning based on my post. She has not answered Monkeybot or Clarice or Chicken Girl either. I would have hoped escalating this to moderators was unnecessary and that Amie, who has called for sensitivity beyond the call of duty more than once, would be able to see past her opinions of me personally to acknowledge the veracity of my points.

Sabine Grant · 02-23-2003, 06:19 PM

LIVIUS : you were given ample answers but they happened to be answers you did not want to hear. I finaly rested my case and stated it after sounding like a broken record and being tired of stating my opinions over and over. You simply need Livius to allow people to disagree with you.

I did not realize that you have indeed asked in your first post Amie to post a warning. Amie went off line shortly after her last post. I gave Atheist in Foxhole 24 hours to aknowledge my posts to him. I would suggest you give her time to get back on line rather than expecting immediate action.

I am not going to start an entire debate again over whether or not those cartoonish pictures were sexualy explicit or not. They were inappropriate in the Philosophy forum and definitly not contributing to the important topic at hand. You can argue for hours that there were not sexualy explicit the same way someone would see no harm to the picture Amie posted. You opposed to a warning posted prior to those cartoonish pictures whereas I recognize that Amie's picture necessitates a simple warning for sensitive viewers. The issue at hand in the Philosophy forum was that the post was not only out of topic and inappropriate for the thread but it also necessitated to be placed where a warning was in effect. Which is the case for the Freethinker Humor Forum.
If you want to promote the protection of individual thoughts for viewers induced by explicit or graphic material , I suggest you show some consistancy in your concerns.
As far as the rest of your claims Livius, it is really between you and your conscience how you deal with Amie in various threads.
Now , I am not going to discuss again my motivations in regard with my protest in the Philosophy forum. We have material to work on in this very thread and that is where my energy will be invested in.
By the way.... what are your thoughts on what I expressed in my previous post which is directly related to the thread? any comments that can feed the topic?

Sabine Grant · 02-23-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
The article claims that the act was conscious. The foetus is described as 'literally hanging on for dear life'. Implications include the foetus's ability to make concious human choices about grasping things for comfort. This is tenuous given that the foetus has no idea that the surgeons finger is a healing and not a dangerous object. If we are to believe that the foetus has some means of differentiating between comforting objects and frightening ones, how do the writers of the article propose that the foetus knew it was in a surgery and not an abortion clinic? Perhaps the foetus's sentiment is actually pro choce? This is obviously tongue in cheek, but nonetheless there is no evidence here that the foetus is driven by any kind of developed consious human agency.

I have to assume that the fetus was under some anesthetic measures which would indicate that it was a reflexe more than a conscious act. However, 20 weeks fetuses do suck their thumb exercising the soothing effect of suction. ( the picture of my sonogram taken at 20 weeks of my son is enough evidence to me) They do have a sense of pleasure and displeasure.
The article was written with a lyrical tone because as I pointed in my previous thread it was written for the purpose of pro life propaganda which dwells on the " humanity of the unborn". The same way a pro choice individual may write arguments which deny any humanity in the unborn.
I personaly do not believe that the fetus was grabbing that hand with knowledge of his circumstances.... but I could not help dwell ing on the thrill the surgeon may have felt.

oriecat · 02-23-2003, 06:31 PM

I really think a Mod should put a warning in the OP. I'm not gonna get into anything else going on in this thread, but I personally do NOT like seeing things to do with surgery and I would NOT have clicked on that knowing what it is. I didn't read the article, I don't care what it says, because I will not have a picture like that open on my computer. I did not appreciate that at all.

Sabine Grant · 02-23-2003, 06:33 PM

See you all tomorrow..... hubby is on his way home.
A bientot, Veronique.

Daggah · 02-23-2003, 06:36 PM

The quality of that pro-lifer propaganda is pretty typical.

I.e., it was pretty bad.

Amie, do you have anything DECENT to post on these forums? Anything? Anything at all?

oriecat · 02-23-2003, 06:37 PM

And no, I do NOT like horror movies. Growing up I was afraid of the Creature from Black Lagoon, and I spent what felt like years terrified there was a mummy outside my window, after having seen part of some mummy movie at a slumber party in 2nd grade. My brothers made me watch Friday the 13th and then I was afraid everytime I opened a door in the dark that Freddy would jump out at me. And because I am very jumpy, they of course had no qualms about utilizing that information. No, I don't like to be scared and I don't like disgusting images.

lunachick · 02-23-2003, 07:01 PM

I looked at the picture and article within seconds of it being posted. I thought it was going to be a magnificent landscape caught in perfect light, with some natural phenomenon happening, like aurora borealis, or something. But that is beside the point. I thought it was an amazing picture, and the surgical precision that must be employed in the intro-uterine procedure is truly something to marvel. However, after reading the article, all I could think was, "uh oh. I'm not going to comment here - Amie's in big trouble!" LOL. From my own point of view, it is the POLITICS, not the picture, that offended me; and that the politics was delivered in such an underhanded manner.

In my own view regarding "life" - I would have to say I am pro-life, as I believe in diversity of "life" in the natural world. Too many human births are upsetting that, creating a dangerous imbalance in nature. That is where I am pro-life: give more life to the flora and fauna - try to maintain ecological balance.

As for humans; they already have too much life, and that is proving deadly to other life-forms. Therefore, in human terms, I am pro-choice, and will not be manipulated by touchy-feely sentiments to feel any differently. Too many humans on this planet are such a strain on the fragile ecology of our wee planet that so called "pro-lifers" are actually the kiss of death in the end. You wanna be pro-life? - stop breeding and plant a fucking tree. But I digress....

As an image, the picture fascinated me and I marvelled at the skill and knowledge, via medical science, that such a procedure could so successfully be completed. The accompanying text, however, did offend me. And, as I'm not the least bit hung up on religion, please don't try to use that as an accusation of some kind of anti-theist kneejerk reaction from me - it just ain't so. It's the politics and emotional blackmail inherent in the article that got my goat.

Chicken Girl · 02-23-2003, 07:18 PM

what lunachick said.

I also saw Amie's OP right after she posted it, before there were any replies. Now I'm really starting to wish I had posted a warning for the graphic content in lieu of the one Amie should have provided in her OP. I could have saved a few stomachs.

pz · 02-23-2003, 07:28 PM

I didn't find the picture at all disturbing, but then I've seen much bloodier, messier things. I do find it hypocritical for people who go all aflutter at mild sexual references to think that bloody open wounds are "amazing".

I found the text and the intent of the page to be thoroughly appalling. I despise pro-lifers who value human life so superficially that they will venerate feebly differentiated flecks of meat that just happen to have the right number of chromosomes and a vague resemblance to some random bit of human anatomy. It cheapens people.

As much as I respect the skill of the surgeons, I think the attitude we have in the West that the fetus is 'sacred' is a real waste. That surgery would have cost a small fortune. It would have been far wiser to simply abort and try again...and even better, contribute one one hundredth of what that operation cost to charitable medical aid to Africa and Asia, where it could have saved a few of the many real children who die everyday from such cheaply correctable deaths as dysentery and dehydration.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2003, 06:19 PM	#32
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	LIVIUS : you were given ample answers but they happened to be answers you did not want to hear. I finaly rested my case and stated it after sounding like a broken record and being tired of stating my opinions over and over. You simply need Livius to allow people to disagree with you. I did not realize that you have indeed asked in your first post Amie to post a warning. Amie went off line shortly after her last post. I gave Atheist in Foxhole 24 hours to aknowledge my posts to him. I would suggest you give her time to get back on line rather than expecting immediate action. I am not going to start an entire debate again over whether or not those cartoonish pictures were sexualy explicit or not. They were inappropriate in the Philosophy forum and definitly not contributing to the important topic at hand. You can argue for hours that there were not sexualy explicit the same way someone would see no harm to the picture Amie posted. You opposed to a warning posted prior to those cartoonish pictures whereas I recognize that Amie's picture necessitates a simple warning for sensitive viewers. The issue at hand in the Philosophy forum was that the post was not only out of topic and inappropriate for the thread but it also necessitated to be placed where a warning was in effect. Which is the case for the Freethinker Humor Forum. If you want to promote the protection of individual thoughts for viewers induced by explicit or graphic material , I suggest you show some consistancy in your concerns. As far as the rest of your claims Livius, it is really between you and your conscience how you deal with Amie in various threads. Now , I am not going to discuss again my motivations in regard with my protest in the Philosophy forum. We have material to work on in this very thread and that is where my energy will be invested in. By the way.... what are your thoughts on what I expressed in my previous post which is directly related to the thread? any comments that can feed the topic?

02-23-2003, 06:31 PM	#34
oriecat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Portland OR USA Posts: 1,098	I really think a Mod should put a warning in the OP. I'm not gonna get into anything else going on in this thread, but I personally do NOT like seeing things to do with surgery and I would NOT have clicked on that knowing what it is. I didn't read the article, I don't care what it says, because I will not have a picture like that open on my computer. I did not appreciate that at all.

02-23-2003, 06:33 PM	#35
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	See you all tomorrow..... hubby is on his way home. A bientot, Veronique.

02-23-2003, 06:36 PM	#36
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	The quality of that pro-lifer propaganda is pretty typical. I.e., it was pretty bad. Amie, do you have anything DECENT to post on these forums? Anything? Anything at all?

02-23-2003, 06:37 PM	#37
oriecat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Portland OR USA Posts: 1,098	And no, I do NOT like horror movies. Growing up I was afraid of the Creature from Black Lagoon, and I spent what felt like years terrified there was a mummy outside my window, after having seen part of some mummy movie at a slumber party in 2nd grade. My brothers made me watch Friday the 13th and then I was afraid everytime I opened a door in the dark that Freddy would jump out at me. And because I am very jumpy, they of course had no qualms about utilizing that information. No, I don't like to be scared and I don't like disgusting images.

02-23-2003, 07:01 PM	#38
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	I looked at the picture and article within seconds of it being posted. I thought it was going to be a magnificent landscape caught in perfect light, with some natural phenomenon happening, like aurora borealis, or something. But that is beside the point. I thought it was an amazing picture, and the surgical precision that must be employed in the intro-uterine procedure is truly something to marvel. However, after reading the article, all I could think was, "uh oh. I'm not going to comment here - Amie's in big trouble!" LOL. From my own point of view, it is the POLITICS, not the picture, that offended me; and that the politics was delivered in such an underhanded manner. In my own view regarding "life" - I would have to say I am pro-life, as I believe in diversity of "life" in the natural world. Too many human births are upsetting that, creating a dangerous imbalance in nature. That is where I am pro-life: give more life to the flora and fauna - try to maintain ecological balance. As for humans; they already have too much life, and that is proving deadly to other life-forms. Therefore, in human terms, I am pro-choice, and will not be manipulated by touchy-feely sentiments to feel any differently. Too many humans on this planet are such a strain on the fragile ecology of our wee planet that so called "pro-lifers" are actually the kiss of death in the end. You wanna be pro-life? - stop breeding and plant a fucking tree. But I digress.... As an image, the picture fascinated me and I marvelled at the skill and knowledge, via medical science, that such a procedure could so successfully be completed. The accompanying text, however, did offend me. And, as I'm not the least bit hung up on religion, please don't try to use that as an accusation of some kind of anti-theist kneejerk reaction from me - it just ain't so. It's the politics and emotional blackmail inherent in the article that got my goat.

02-23-2003, 07:18 PM	#39
Chicken Girl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 6,549	what lunachick said. I also saw Amie's OP right after she posted it, before there were any replies. Now I'm really starting to wish I had posted a warning for the graphic content in lieu of the one Amie should have provided in her OP. I could have saved a few stomachs.

02-23-2003, 07:28 PM	#40
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	I didn't find the picture at all disturbing, but then I've seen much bloodier, messier things. I do find it hypocritical for people who go all aflutter at mild sexual references to think that bloody open wounds are "amazing". I found the text and the intent of the page to be thoroughly appalling. I despise pro-lifers who value human life so superficially that they will venerate feebly differentiated flecks of meat that just happen to have the right number of chromosomes and a vague resemblance to some random bit of human anatomy. It cheapens people. As much as I respect the skill of the surgeons, I think the attitude we have in the West that the fetus is 'sacred' is a real waste. That surgery would have cost a small fortune. It would have been far wiser to simply abort and try again...and even better, contribute one one hundredth of what that operation cost to charitable medical aid to Africa and Asia, where it could have saved a few of the many real children who die everyday from such cheaply correctable deaths as dysentery and dehydration.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.