Essay talk:Why I oppose abortion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3


OK Earthland, I said I wasn't gonna post here again, but since you're still arguing for an inflexible concept of morality without explaining its basis, & didn't answer my previous question about this, I'm breaking my promise.

You've said above that Morality is not "what majority thinks". So what it is?

I think you've said that you're an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) so presumably you don't see morality as something divinely regulated. But most secular conceptions of morality (e.g. evolutionary, anthropological or psychological analysis of how morality is formed) suggest that it is something pragmatic, varying among cultures & individuals. If instead you view morality as something objective and unchanging, where and how does it originate? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of natural law?
I hope to explain it more, later. I'm a bit sleepy at the moment. --Earthland (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Natural Law - what a cop out. That comes down to "I believe it is so, therefore it is so." There is no such logical thing as natural law. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I take back what I said about there being no logical 'natural law' - of course there is one. The one true natural law is strive for optimum propagation of one's own genes. That's it. Anything else is not natural. Occasionally it may be beneficial to abort a foetus so as to provide a better life for later offspring. That is perfectly valid by natural law. However, because we hold ourselves higher than other animals, we have developed relativistic laws, laws based on society as it stands. Under these laws, both moral and legal, abortion is, up to a point, perfectly acceptable. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The natural law is the exact opposite of "I believe it so, therefore it is so". If it is applied to morality, it means that morality exists not only in our heads, and there's no difference what I think or what you think is moral. Moral naturalism means that there is moral truth and it has validity everywhere. (It is not exactly the same thing as moral absolute, although moral absolutes also exist).

I know that such short introduction remains largely assertion, but this is how I basically see it.

--Earthland (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do we know what is or isn't moral? What source do we look to to guide us? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no such "source", just like there wasn't a "source" that told us "secrets" about other natural laws - for example, knowledge about gravity didn't come trough some divine message. Yes, it's up to us to figure out what is moral and what is not, but it has nothing to do with our personal opinions about morality. You may think that there is no such thing like gravity, but it still exists, whether you believe it or not. Moral naturalism means that there is moral truth, and if there is moral truth, then argumentum ad populum isn't any argument at all, because truth is independent of human opinion. --Earthland (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The "source" for physical laws such as gravity is the scientific method. They are empirically verifiable or falsifiable. How can you apply the scientific method to morality? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Moral values can be derived from facts about the world and human nature. For example... well, take some really really random country - let's say, Lithuania. Economically unstable. Let's suppose 60 % of all population decide that non-citizens have no right to private property. Isn't it absolutely democratic? And legal? Oh noes, we have, after all, the universal declaration of human rights. But suppose it would've happen a century or two earlier (sadly, Lithuania didn't exist at that time...). It would have been absolutely democratic and legal. But moral? Even if the vast majority in the given society agrees to do something - for example, 75 % of the whole population decides to kill the rest of 25 %, is it moral?
We have a nice saying in Estonia, JOKK; "Everyhting is juridically correct." Corrupted politicians like to act in a way that is juridically absolutely correct, but we still often feel it is not right what they do, it is not moral, even if legal. Is it human nature?
Moral naturalism states that the meaning of an ethical predicate (‘…is good’) is identical with that of a predicate displaying the features in virtue of which the object is good, e.g. ‘…is such as to create happiness’. And rights should be based on a being's natural or inherent capacities. --Earthland (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Except by declaring abortion to be murder, you are in fact taking away the rights of not only the mother, but her physician's as well. Your arguments in your essay are laughable, and so far all you've done is quote others or make ridiculous claims about the start of life, morality, and so forth. Nowhere do you provide anything to support your claims.
The fact of the matter is: Medical associations and the people of developed nations have all stated that abortion is not murder, but is a choice of the mother based on medical necessity. You claim that a fetus should have rights, by arguing that this is about human rights; but can you name anyone who would grant a fetus the same rights that any born human would have?
Yours is a ludicrous appeal to emotion, not based on facts but opinion, and have yet to declare how abortion is immoral beyond "I THINK THAT ABORTION IS IMMORAL!" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Earthland, you still haven't answered my main question - if morality is objective, how do we know what is or isn't moral? You mention that we can derive it from facts about the world, then follow it up with a "let's suppose" example rather than a real one. Where's the beef? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it is possible to figure it out what is moral or not, trough rational and honest discussion. That's what my essay is about. Moral naturalists assert that people have the same basic moral principles, but that they draw ultimately different conclusions from those principles or suppress these principles inside them (for example, a fairly common psychological characteristic of murderers - after a murderer has committed his first murder, he may feel that bad that he vomits. After his second murder, he still feels bad, but won't vomit. After the third one he feels only little bad.... interestingly, similar stories can be found about abortionists). --Earthland (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's not possible to figure out what is moral or not through rational and honest discussion. Morals are determined either personally or by the society we live in. You can try to convince someone to change their personal morals, or over enough time people change the morals or their civilization. But it's not "which side do you think had a better argument?-that becomes our morals!"
WTH are "moral naturalists?" And can you cite me where any of these people say that people have the same basic moral principles?
And your attempt to equate abortion to murder again is stupid. Let's take it this way. "After a teenager has drunk his first beer, he may feel that bad that he vomits. After his second beer, he still feels bad, but won't vomit. After the third one he feels only a little bad." Is drinking now the same as murder? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to sound civil - Irrational, you have repeatedly claimed that I'm just "trolling around" and I'm a fucking pussy who can't answer your arguments anyway - why do you think that I'm going to answer your latest irrefutable analogues and fresh insights that you've brought to this debate? If you honestly believe I'm troll, then try to act in a way consistent with this claim and leave me alone. (Yes, yes, I shouldn't do any comments about you also). --Earthland (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We can figure out our own moral principles through rational and honest discussion, but as for figuring out some objective natural standard of morality that way, it ain't gonna work. People disagree strongly on moral issues such as abortion, so how can we know what is the "correct" moral stance on it according to natural law? I guess you just find some people who think you & agree among yourselves that your take on it is the correct one & that those other people who don't agree are just misguided or fooling themselves or repressing their true moral principles. Something like that, yeah? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Like anyone with an obsession such as EL's objective morality just happens to coincide with what he believes. He dresses this up with the life begins at conception, therefore human rights begins at conception argument but, apart from cherry picked quotes from pro-life sites and dictionary definitions which do not make the link he's looking for, he cant make the link because there is no link. Greater minds than ours have been worrying over this issue for generations but some adolescent from Estonia has it all worked out, nah, I don't think so. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a breather[edit]

I've only followed this discussion in a very superficial sense, but have you guys considered just taking a break to review your discussion to decide some specific points you'd like to discuss? Right now it seems to be a perpetual argument machine. Maybe you could take some of the definitions and key points and move them in to a debate? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrational pretty much said everything that needed to be said. EL has no answers for him. δij^{} 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Someone comes up with true horseshit and I am supposed to answer it, and if I won't it is something "irrefutable". Buy a brain, cgb. Or side-by-side my essay, then you would actually have to read it. --Earthland (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If it's such horseshit, why do you insist on responding to it on my talk page and here over and over, and then say you're done speaking to me over and over? Your arguments would be better if you'd stop contradicting yourself so often. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it admission that you're a sock of cgb? Even your last comment shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not interested in talking to you, even if I occasionally respond to some of your silliness. --Earthland (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not a fucking sock. I'm not a fucking parodist. Either answer the questions I ask and reply to the statements I make as I make them, not the questions you wish I had asked or the statements you believe I should have made, or shut up, stop blocking me and stop crapping on my talk page. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason I suggested a debate is partly for the same reason mentioned by Hamster, but also because this discussion has run for a very long time. Abortion is pretty big umbrella topic, and any discussion is prone to scope-creep. In a specific debate you can reduce the noise, perhaps limiting the discussion to a specified group of people, and you can focus on your key points of disagreement. Moderation is also a possibility, if only to handle the personal attacks that have been creeping in. Either you want to continue this discussion, in which case a debate may help, or you're better off just dropping the subject and accepting that agreement isn't possible. Earthland, I know that this subject is of great personal interest to yourself, but perhaps you'd benefit from taking a look at some other topics for a while? You're an articulate writer, and it seems unfortunate to be almost exclusively associated with this single and clearly emotive topic. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is really no point in a debate or any further discussion. EL isn't going to change his view point and he's certainly not going to change anyone else's. All we're doing is recycling the same old same old again and again and again. In the course of the world's longest talk page we've covered just about every angle and still EL seems to feel that there's been "a notable lack of serious discussion" - OK, so he's edited that out but he's stated elsewhere that he still believes it. It seems that nothing we can do or say will satisfy him and his attempts to shock with pictures of mangled foetuses (whose appealing to emotion now?) will never satisfy those who disagree. Any attempt to restart the discussion is inevitably doomed. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the idea of debate is great, but I have no interest to organize it all by myself. Jack Bob Soles Hughes, the only one who is currently recycling the same old bullshit is you - will you ever stop making this one claim in every possible place you can? Everyone's heard it by now. --Earthland (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No one will want to debate you if you keep insisting that no one gives you a reasonable argument (especially when you constantly misrepresent the arguments provided), you insist on posting images of fetuses on your page, you accuse anyone and everyone of being a parodist or sock just because they make similar sound arguments against your points, and so forth. If the only way you defend your points is with irrational behavior and appeals to emotion, you've lost the debate already, and rational people will not want to waste time rehashing things with someone who will persist in ignorance. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
...really? Just let me know how long are you going to rant on this talk page, it would be great use for further studies of human psychology. --Earthland (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because being a pissant troll is going to win over people wanting to further engage what you're saying. I've already realized you don't care about rational talk; you have an overzealous point to make, and damn logic and reality already. Anyone makes a point that gets you stuck (like what legally should happen to a woman who has an abortion), that you can't respond to, and you attack the person as a parodist, sock puppet, go elsewhere to accuse them of libelous activity, state that a person has said something out of context and mocking it, and so forth... You have the psychological issue here, and others are pleading with you to get off this subject and make better contributions. Why hasn't it sunk in yet? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Which kind of proves my point. We've gone way beyond the point where rational discourse is possible. Look how childish we've all become - and yes, I very much mean you as well, EL. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest that your opinion is not the most adequate one, Bob, since you've been childish as long as I can remember (take it as a personal insult, your arguments are not childish, but you manage to present them in this way). --Earthland (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Precisely my point - EL's only response is yet another insult. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it wasn't really the point you made, Bob. And I think it's time for both of us to say something construcitve, now, at last. (No more gibberish about how we consider each other to be "closed to reason" and other such thing.) --Earthland (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No one believes your horseshit[edit]

not even in Kansas [1] Any way you want to sum it up, ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. δij^{} 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Essay NOT A Debate - or dont I understand Essays ?[edit]

My understanding on Essays is that they are an opinion piece by the author. They are not collaborative (dont edit) but do allow comments on the talk page. They are NOT an ongoing debate , thats for Debate pages.

If you dont agree with the position , comment and move on. Ignore the thing from then on. If you disagree hugely create your own essay page and provide your views. Hamster (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be definitely very interesting if someone could take this effort to answer me with his/her own essay. But I don't really believe such thing could happen. --Earthland (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagine that you change your mind...[edit]

Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade ...

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby! I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.
Norma McCorvey
And? Time educated Hoover! 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not really argument or something, but still interesting to think about. If the pro-life movement is wrong, then we are guilty of trying to deny women a privacy right (and privacy isn't really the biggest known right in human history) or constitutional right, as Americans would say. If a pro-choice person is wrong, he or she suddenly understands that (s)he has been directly advocating the mass-butchering of innocent people. --Earthland (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Have you considered going into the straw man construction business? Time educated Hoover! 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In a way he's right. The root of the abortion issues is the rights of the unborn. Of course, he feels that his sidebar resolves it all. It does no such thing. Society has been arguing over the rights of the unborn for decades and one simplistic quote isn't going to add to anything. The whole thing could be summarised by
  • Pro-lifer - human rights start at conception - ergo all abortion is murder.
  • pro choicer - human rights are gained incrementally and, for convenience, to cut many decades of contemplation short, we will conclude that they start around the 20 - 24 week mark. After that abortion should be a balance between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother and done only in extreme circumstances.
And ne'er the twain shall meet. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the overused arguments that appears in the sidebar is the
  • Pro choicer - you have no right to impose your morality on me.
  • Pro lifer - Ah, but it's like stopping child abuse - and you wouldn't disagree with that, would you?
This, of course, is a common arrow in the pro-lifer's quiver but is very much part of the straw man. Sure, in the pro-lifer's eyes abortion and child abuse are the same thing. However they differ in that the vast majority of mankind feels that child abuse is wrong whereas the majority of mankind does not feel that abortion is wrong. Given that morality is relative and society based then the minority does not have the right to force their opinion on the majority, however strongly they feel about it. The sticking point tends to be whether morality is relative - EL says it's not, it's somehow natural, most pro-lifers think it's god given. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
And another version of the sidebar
  • Pro-choicer - I have carefully thought through all the issues surrounding abortion and have come to a personal decision. I do not impose it on anyone else but myself.
  • Pro lifer - because you disagree with me you cannot have thought it through, you murdering scum!
Jack Hughes (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The pro-choicer in question imposes his "personal" decision on the unborn child who is undeniably another, unique human being. --Earthland (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a TALK page: putting stuff in sidebars isn't how it's done. Would you care to remove it to its place in the "conversation" flow? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think about it, if you please to wait for a while.... --Earthland (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Or add it to the essay? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not to the essay. The question is, how does this side-bar prevent discussion? I do'nt need to keep it, but I don't think it's all that bad also. --Earthland (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Earthland, the talk page is not your property. If you wish to include your argument on this talkpage, do it as a normal comment, like everyone else. -- Nx / talk 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Earthland, several people who actively contribute to this project have told you to remove the sidebar. You insist on keeping it here and now are arguing it's proper. You are obviously trolling and are disrespecting the nature of the talk page. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Earthland: you approach definite trolldom. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone call the LividJengaa! Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no Libellous Jumper (for the next 4 hours anyhoo) yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
That should be anywhom. Time educated Hoover! 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The 'h' is silent where Toast comes from. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Narr, where I come from it should be "Anyroadup". yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You're from Eastasia? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You just may have noticed that I didn't insist that the sidebar must be there at all! I actually said "yes" to first request but wanted to discuss it at first, because some people had already commented it without saying it must be taken down. Is mere request for discussion now "trolling"? Don't feed Irrational's delusions. --Earthland (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do shut up EL. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. --Earthland (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Codswallop. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. --Earthland (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Poppycock. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Such word exists? I mean... honestly? --Earthland (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Balderdash! WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Blasphemy! (Not really!) --Earthland (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Claptrap! Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only does poppycock exist as a word, it's also a popular Canadian snack! As rumour has it, it was a favourite snack of former Prime Minister Joe Clark. --Kels (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Considering the etymology of the word, that's an interesting choice for a name. -- Nx / talk 21:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just some observations[edit]

  1. What is up with all the encyclopedia quotes? Quotes are supposed to serve some purpose and need some actual explanation. Some of the quotes seem to be there just as decoration.
  2. Why do you say that the definitions of the British Medical Association and American Medical Associations are unreliable? You quote all these encyclopedias and then don't actually explain why the BMA/AMA definition - which you don't actually include or link to - is unreliable.
  3. Large chunks of your essay seems to be appeal to definition. This is a bad way to argue. You need to show not only that a particular situation matches the definition, but also that the definition is correct, and is of significance in your argument. Dictionaries are guides to what people think. The dictionary doesn't list necessary and sufficient conditions - it won't actually explain what a concept is or argue the logical limits, just define it. I know a bit about this: I have written hundreds - probably thousands - of definitions.
  4. The primary problem, it seems to me, with any discussion of abortion is that it generates so many Sorites problems. I mean, there is a difference between taking a morning after pill on, presumably, the morning after sex, and having an abortion a few days before the delivery is due. Whatever position you take, you have to spell out why you take that position. I mean, in the UK, the current limit is 24 weeks. A few years ago, the Conservatives campaigned for a drop down to 20 or 22 weeks. But if we are happy to say 20 weeks is okay, why not 21 weeks, 22... 23...? This bites the pro-choice people too - if you are okay with abortion up to 24 weeks, why not 25? There is a Sorities problem here for everyone involved. Do feel free to explain yourself on this.
  5. I think you've not applied the principle of charity very well to "Life begins gradually". The objection there is very simple: the various functions of a foetus develop over time. Again, Sorites problem - a bundle of two or three cells is different in some important way from a fully-formed baby. Those bundle of cells don't do a whole bunch of things: they aren't conscious, they don't breathe, pump blood, digest food. They aren't bones or skin or muscle or brain matter or organs. 'Life', the very thing pro-lifers are so in favour of (as opposed to those horrible anti-lifers), has no real decent definition - see Wikipedia. Life is a process, and so saying it comes about gradually makes some intuitive sense. It may make sense to reject it, but you have to actually grapple with it first.
  6. To follow the principle of charity, try and respond to the stronger arguments for abortion. Look at Judith Jarvis Thompson's A Defense of Abortion for an example of one of these. Thompson is willing to grant the major premise of pro-life arguments - that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. Even if you grant that, Thompson provides some pretty good arguments why abortion is still permissible. It'd be great if you responded to some of them.

Tom Morris (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this feedback.
  • The quotes are meant to emphasise that the scientific consensus on the beginning of life is very strong.
  • On the one hand, we have encyclopedias and medical dictionaries that define pregnancy as beginning at conception. On the other hand we have organizations that begun to claim that pregnancy begins at implantation only from the second half of 20th century, when certian methods of birth control became available. Taken from wikipedia: "At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter ... "
  • But we actually need to define what we're talking about, and I know no better source than a dictionary. Although I have brought up many definitions, these are not my only "arguments".
  • Yes, various functions of a foetus develop over time because the development of an organism in question is undeniably gradual, but it doesn't imply that the beginning of this orgnism is also gradual. You might ask how is it possible that something "non-living" can develop at all? It must already be alive if it develops. If we take this gradualist position, we find ourselves with expressions like "this thing is a little alive, but that thing there is a bit more alive", and biologically it just wouldn't make sense at all.
  • I hope I'll have time to read it in near future.
--Earthland (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Dictionaries are indexes of words and their common meanings, not of the opinions and theories of the people who use those words. See etymological fallacy. You have gotten very close to it. I mean, you don't measure scientific consensus from dictionaries. You measure it by reviewing the actual primary literature. There is a significant difference between primary and secondary literature in every field of inquiry. You have mentioned the BMA/AMA statements, but you haven't actually explained what is wrong with them - just that they aren't the same as the two dictionaries you go onto cite. In my own field, I'm sure I can find plenty of situations where the dictionary is wrong. The critic of my work could then easily take a statement I have said and lined it up next to the OED definition and said "damn, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His language, despite being a purported student of the topic, doesn't match the definition in my dictionary". Well, it might be that the definition in the dictionary is imprecise, doesn't match what actual scholars say and so on. I mean, just take moral philosophy: you ask the average person on the street what "utilitarian" means, and they'll tell you that it's the sort of word you'd use to describe particularly ugly, concrete car parks and shopping malls built in the 1960s, rather than the sort of philosophy adopted by Bentham, Mill, Singer, Smart etc. Dictionaries exist to give a rough flavour of the common usage of words, not a guidebook for arguments. A list of definitions is not an argument.
My point is very simple: listing a definition doesn't get you where you want to go - you need to actually argue that the definition is correct. You need to ensure that you aren't defining the thing in a circular manner. Like if I said "That's postmodern", and someone were to say "What makes it postmodern?", and I were to respond "Well, it exhibits characteristics of postmodernism".
The gradualist position doesn't have to make sense biologically. It makes rough common sense - if you are faced, at the end of life, with someone who is irreversibly unconscious, has lost the ability to move, interact, identify themselves in their surroundings, feel pain, or perform many of the other things living things do - again, the Wikipedia link I posted explains how life is an emergent process - then we do naturally say things like "this person is barely alive" or "this person is alive, but they aren't really living like I am". Similarly, in an important non-biological sense, a fertilised egg is not the same as a developed baby, just as the unconscious dementia-sufferer is not the same as the person was a year earlier.
An analogy can be drawn to a computer: a computer may be on or off, right? But when you are starting it up, it's just booting, and takes some time to boot, find the hard drive, load the operating system. Generally with a computer, if you turn it off immediately after start up, you won't lose data in the same way you might if you waited until the operating system had started up. At the physical level, you can say "well, either the electricity is flowing or it isn't". And you could go to the library, find a hundred electrical engineering manuals and quote mine them for all the definitions of "powered up" or "switched on" as you like, and still be arguing rather irrelevantly.
The gradualist will agree with you that the foetus is alive. But just because something is alive doesn't mean it's part of the moral community. That can be a fairly arbitrary decision. Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly), we allow, in certain places, the state to determine that a person can be executed. The person who has been sentenced for execution - he has been determined not to be a member of the moral community any more due to his actions. He still satisfies all the criteria that a the pro-lifers foetus does - he's alive, a unique, separate individual. But, rightly or wrongly, he is no longer part of the moral community. He no longer has the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the Declaration of Independence put it. There is no medical or biological reason for this. There is a legal reason, a moral reason. The gradualist argument about abortion seems to me to be the same - it simply says that while the individual may be alive in the biological sense, their membership in the class of moral beings doesn't start until they have a cluster of functions. To understand this a bit better, consider the feeling that someone who has a miscarriage feels, and compare that to the feeling they have if their child were to die when they were six years old. At six, the child has developed language, emotions, complex belief networks, dispositions, joined the social community of friends, has ideas, creates, has independence. Life, in the biological sense, is not the issue.
Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Tom, that piece you linked to was very good. Clearly written (though typo-ridden), and logically presented. I'd like to see a piece of similar quality arguing the other side sometime... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Although her analogy does ignore the mostly lifesaving operation of kidney transplant... ħumanUser talk:Human 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I emailed Ms Thompson for permission to reproduce the article. Unfortunately the copyright is owned by the journal, not by her and I can't see them releasing it. Bob Soles (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Ms Thompson uses the famous "violinist" example. It is an unbearably bleak attempt to justify abortion. (I hope to write about it more...)
Tom, it is not "etymological fallacy" since my definitions about the beginning of pregnancy were taken from encyclopedias and medical dictionaries, and as such these definition have nothing to do with "original or historical meaning of a word", but have everything to do with its "actual present-day meaning".
I did mention the "early pregnancy factor" for example. And, once again, taken from wikipedia: "The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue since knowledge of human reproduction and development has become very refined, but rather is primarily a linguistic and definitional question."
"The person who has been sentenced for execution - he has been determined not to be a member of the moral community any more due to his actions. He still satisfies all the criteria that a the pro-lifers foetus does - he's alive, a unique, separate individual."
As I believe there is almost no excuse to purposefully kill another human being, I oppose death penalty as well. The basic premise of such arguments are deeming for human rights. It says that there is human life that does not need protection. The basic premise of pro-life movement is that every human being should be protected - no matter if old and dying, newly born, unborn, disabled etc.
Abortion is never "life, liberty and happiness" and as a matter of fact, I don't really care about "Declaration of Independence" since it really is about one country only. --Earthland (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct but reason Wrong[edit]

Mr Earthland is Correct that abortion is Wrong, but Wrong about the Reason. It is Wrong because it is against the Will of God.--Tolerance (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on what? The Bible doesn't ban abortion, but gives specific references that forcing miscarriage is only a monetary punishment, rather than "eye for an eye" if the person injures the pregnant woman (Ex. 21:22-25); Numbers 5:11-31 makes abortion the crime if a woman is unfaithful to her husband and gets pregnant from another man; Lev. 27:1-7 makes it clear that there is no value to a human under one month of age. So where in the Bible is abortion considered wrong? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it was part of Jesus' sermon about the evils of condoms. Might have been the one condemning lesbians, though, I always get those mixed up. --Kels (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just glad to see Tolerance back with her own special twist on the subject. We were running short on lulz. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only an argument that people who believe in a god that they think said that shouldn't have abortions. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read about thirty pages of Bible. It didn't address any questions I'm interested in. I don't know what is God's will, since I'm not even sure that any kind of God exists. --Earthland (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
My Logic for the moral argument against abortion is quite Simple.
  • Most people believe God exists.
  • God doesn't want us to Sin.
  • Going against the Word of God is a Sin.
  • Churches interpret and Spread the Word of God.
  • Churches are against Abortion because they say it is against God's Will.
  • Therefore abortion is a Sin.
Whether you agree or not the Logic is sound. Earthland, by Denying the Existence of God, also does away with the the Absolute Moral Standard necessary to Pronounce Abortion a Sin. Sadly, he has nothing more than his Human Opinion - which, at the end of the day, carries no more Weight than his opponents. --Tolerance (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This fellow's got it mostly right, he just left out the most important part: Hell! where sinners will fester and burn for all eternity, praise the Lord! RationalChristian (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's low-hanging fruit even for a bear mouse of little brain like myself. First postulate is irrelevant, since believing something exists doesn't make it true. Second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Third depends on the definition of "Sin". Fourth is irrelevant, since there's no proof the churches are correct in their interpretations. Fifth is pointless, following from the lack of proof in four, plus there's nothing in the source material (the Bible) that specifically talks about abortion. To wrap up, to get to the conclusion you have to make logical leaps that would each win you Gold at the 2012 Summer Games, and then some. Plz to try harder next time. --Kels (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance, are you serious? Or just making fun? These are theological not moral arguments. Actually these are not even arguments but assertions. --Earthland (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"Kettle, you're black!" --Signed, Earthland Pot. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
On what is Morality based if not on Theology? One could Argue that it is based on Changing Social Standards, but that would make Morality Relative to each Society. We both Know that Abortion is a Sin. I have a Sound basis for my belief (as Above), but I'm Afraid that I'm not so Sure about yours.--Tolerance (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Do animals have theology? They have morals. Atheists have morals. Morality comes from society and from socially accepted behavior. Morality is relative to each society, and there is no objective morality because it's really subjective to what the person arguing the objective morality believes. Abortion is not a sin except to those who believe in sin (therefore it's not objective). You have a belief, not a sound basis for a belief. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if God's existences depends on the number of people believing in him, it is also relatively relative basis for morality. You sound like a pro-choice straw-man. --Earthland (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Irrational, I see you had the courage to edit this Talk page at the same time with me. I also see that You've created another Shitty article that nobody needs. Since there is no reliable third-part source, it has no validity. --Earthland (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Earthland, stop trolling. Your one-hit wonder is useless (an essay???). My contributions are in use. So fuck off already. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
God's Existence is not based on the number of People who Believe in Him. If nobody believed in Him He would still Exist and Abortion would still be Wrong. What I remain Unsure about is how You know it is Wrong.--Tolerance (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You've still failed to establish (1) that God (and, in fact, the specific God you've got in mind) exists and (2) that even if he does exist, he thinks abortion is wrong. You kinda need to establish those premises first, y'know. --Kels (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For me that is a Question of Faith rather than Evidence. I do not hope to Persuade you only to show how I Reach my conclusion. The Thing is that my Faith makes is Real for me, I Understand that it may not be Real for you and I Respect that. But what I am really trying to Find Out is what is Real for the Author of the Essay. My Absolute Moral Standard tells me that Abortion is Wrong, I'm Interested to Know how He reaches the Same Conclusion without an Absolute Moral Standard.--Tolerance (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't expect me to take you seriously. --Earthland (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. As I happens, I do most Sincerely Hope you will take me Seriously. I Agree with much of what you Say in your Essay, but what you do not say is Why it is actually Wrong. I Know why it is Wrong - what I'd like you to Explain is Why you think it is Wrong. What is your Moral Base?--Tolerance (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


The whole essay page is now a splendid monument to ugliness. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...more exactly, what and why? I don't think I'm going to change it anyway. It is too well-structured. --Earthland (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The whole mish-mash of different typefaces, font-sizes and quote styles. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Says a lot about the author. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope you spend nice time making vaguely insulting comments about me, "Toast". I do. --Earthland (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's only an insult if you agree that it is a "mish-mash", otherwise, if you like it, it's a compliment, surely "Earthland"?
It depends on what you think since you made the comment, "..." --Earthland (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's like CUR never went away. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
CUR was friendlier (and more socially inept). This is more like HoG. --Kels (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Goat, I miss CUR. Time educated Hoover! 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, me too, for the most part. It's just tiresome thin-skinned whining like this that reminds me of the stuff I don't miss about him. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The essay's formatting is slightly better than that of Time Cube, "Earthland" (if that is your real name, which I doubt.) Time educated Hoover! 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)::::
I'm slightly worried because I don't understand what you mean by "better that that of Time Cube" (Time Cube?!). "Earthland" is the most common Estonian name. .... if you take a closer look at my user page, you can find my true name also. --Earthland (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This time cube Look and learn - despite derision from all who look upon him he knows he's right. He's put together a logical answer and all who disagree are either ignorant or part of the global conspiracy. Gaze upon the wonder that is Time Cube (cue spooky music and wobbly images). Bob Soles (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
CЯacke® is part of the global conspiracy but the check is 6 weeks late and I'm thinking of switching to "ignorant". 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Horses and Puppies[edit]

Re:some of this, pro-choice advocates don't necessarily consider puppies' lives forfeit, nor do many other people. If possible, I'd like to see a section on whether animals deserve basic human rights (so to speak), since I can't make out your position on that. Or at least more on why gradual development of a moral entity is invalid, beyond comparisons to Social Darwinism. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd like to see far too much. Animals have animal rights, that may (in different context) include "basic human rights". It means that they may have the right to life, but not in the same sense as humans. I am not willing to discuss it. It will get boring and abstract. And I think you didn't understand my edit correctly at all. --Earthland (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how this subject could possibly go anywhere without being boring or abstract, but fair enough, and it's up to you. I simply didn't see anywhere in which you've distinguished between animals' and humans' rights, which are pretty relevant when arguments involve their sentience/development/etc. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Should abortion be illegal for under-aged rape victims?[edit]

Hello Earthland. We meet again. I'm not exactly clear in what way you "oppose" abortion (or choice):

Say you had a case where there was a speedy trial resulting in a rape conviction, and this rape left a 12 year old pregnant. Both the girl and her parents would like to get an abortion. The girl is 1 week into her pregnancy. Should the state forbid doctors from aiding the "murder" this unborn "person"? Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it be illegal for rape victims to have the semen cleaned out of their uterus?[edit]

After a rape, some women/girls, wish to have the rapist's semen removed. The reasons may include hygiene, collecting evidence, or preventing/ending pregnancy. The procedure is known as D&C. Problem is, there could be a unicellular "person" in their uterus, resulting from the rapist's sperm fertilizing the victim's egg. In this case, should doctors be allowed to go ahead and possibly "murder" "someone" (the "egg"), or should some of these women/girls, have to incubate, carry, and give birth to their rapists' children? Lumenos (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere Earthland replied with the following statement, "(...)abortion is fairly simple issue and rape does not make it any more controversial, because the child is who (s)he is - innocent living human being who has not chosen to inhabit his mother's body when conceived(...) --Earthland (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)" Lumenos (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the idea of a woman deciding not to get an abortion is a little less controversial than the state trying to intervene when a woman/girl requests help in removing rapist semen from their uterus. Thus I'm asking for your position on the later. Of course you don't have to tell us, if this is something private or undecided. I know it is a touchy subject but would it be too much to ask if you could just come right out and answer with a "yes" or "no"?
It sounds like you would be for counseling rape victims, to allow the rapist's semen to go ahead and get them pregnant, if it hasn't already, so as not to risk killing a zygote who might be in their uterus. But I'm not sure how far you believe we should go to prevent them from having their uterus cleaned out, if that is their choice. Should the state categorically forbid D&C? I mean, there is no practical way to determine if the woman/girl has had sex recently. If we ascribe the same rights to zygotes as we do to people, then we would take extraordinary measures to ensure a zygote would not be killed. Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous to you? Lumenos (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of "person" or "full human being"[edit]

"(...)if your arguments are based on the premise that unborn human beings are not persons (you see, only 0,01 - 0,1 out of all abortions are done because of rape, this is a very minor issue)(...) --Earthland (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"

I was asking about your arguments. Why not discuss something "minor"? I thought you had something to teach us, but you don't seem to have an answer to either of those questions. I'm not sure if you believe we should value a conceived egg as much as any person. You are correct if you think I would disagree with that. Lumenos (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"But what about rape" should be discussed, of course. But this discussion should be based on premise that human embryo even in its earliest stage of development is full human being, a person. If he is not a full human being, this discussion is pointless, because then we should be allowed to kill embryo for whatever reason we want to, and "cases of rape" have no importance at all. --Earthland (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That is fine but in order to interpret your statement there I'm trying to ascertain the practical meaning of "person" or "full human being", in your mind. Does it mean that if the woman "negligently" causes the death of a zygote who is in the woman's body, that this woman should be guilty of manslaughter? Or does "full human being" mean that if this woman intentionally kills this zygote, she should rightly be called a murderer?
I hope that I have clarified why the questions in the two sections above, are relevant to understanding what your essay actually means. Thank you for your replies and your further input would be appreciated, if possible.
Lumenos (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Various points on a brief perusal[edit]

First up, there's a lot of spelling and grammar issues sprinkled around. They appear to be the typical errors of someone not familiar with English, in which case they're understandable, but still have an impact on comprehension. Either way, do you object to somebody editing for spelling and grammar where the intent is clear, perhaps also a dialogue to better express the less-clear points?

That said:

"Twinning is an extremely rare event - only 997 out of 1000 embryos divide into two separate individuals. Philosopher Robert Wennberg provides the following story."

Those statistics look a little.. odd? You don't include a source or reference so it's not possible to double check. Correction on both the number and the lack of source please?

They are defined as "universal minimal standard of justice, tolerance and human dignity that is owed to individuals by the mere virtue of their humanity." Human rights are universal, in that they are possessed by all by virtue of the fact that they are human, and independent in that their existence as moral standards of justification and criticism is independent whether or not they are recognized by a particular national or international legal system or government. Abortion is not a right, but a wrong under justice.

1. This presumably includes the rights of the woman to her bodily independence and to not having her life restricted by any other. One could argue of course, that perhaps the foetus' right to life supersedes these, but consider: one could use that same argument to say that for example, a bystander must risk their own discomfort (and potentially their life) to rescue a child from riptides -- I cannot think of a batter analogy, but that should suffice -- so at what point does the right to life take precedence over the right not to be put at discomfort or risk by another?

2. Please define "justice". Does it mean "that which is permissible by law" or does it mean "that which is fair and equal"? Because these are not always the same thing; in the former case, many jurisdictions indeed make a right (e.g. as determined in Roe v. Wade; various laws in my own New Zealand). In the latter, there is clearly much ongoing debate, including your own essay, so to claim this is the fallacy of petitio principii. Either way, you make a universal claim which is not sufficiently evidenced.

3. That abortion would be barred by justice in any and all forms does not eliminate the multiple potential reasons, and I explicitly note many of which are justifiable on grounds of health (psychological and physical), for which an abortion is carried out. Even excluding those performed on the basis of "I want it, therefore you must give it" your argument does not account

... they only say that they support the "choice" - that every woman should have the right to choose abortion. They assert that they are actually "personally opposed" to abortion ...

This sounds suspiciously like personal anecdote. I for example would have said that most pro-choice supporters make no stance whatsoever on whether abortion is acceptable. They merely recognise that they have no right to intrude on what is fundamentally her right to privacy in, by most reports, a very stressful time and a difficult personal decision. Again, I ask you to consider: would you permit the government to decide for you which brand of butter, cereal, beef, pork is better for you? Or to determine which car you should buy, so that the safety of all those around you is maximised? Any of a myriad things which otherwise are left entirely to your whim, now part of a de jure and de facto standardised life, could be supported by argument in exactly the way you have done so for abortion.

In these cases and in your argument, the representatives of society as a whole, acting on the best information available to them -- something which is even now not really objectively applicable to abortion -- are determining what should be best for you, making the choice for you of what should benefit your well-being most, even though it may violate your privacy to some degree.

Ironically, this would ultimately lead to the removal of independece and uniqueness from society and humanity, one of the beginning points you used to support the biological argument against abortion previously. It also leads to an interesting quandary: what if government decides that on the basis of examining all the arguments and data available, abortion is legal, exactly as it is now in many states?

However, abortion does not always include the intention to kill innocent human being. Firstly, many people simply don't know abortion results in death of innocent human being (this goes for women who want abortion, because every competent doctor knows that abortion results in someone's death

Here, your argument against abortion here relies on your earlier argument against abortion in the passages dealing with the point at which life begins. This has issues as shown previously, so commenting seems pointless without a basis to work from. I also note that it is not the first section to use a previous argument as the basis for a new one; you have already used the assumption (per logic, a starting point for argument) of a foetus being alive to support that government should protect it at all costs. Now is currently not a good time to think over this, but it appears that many of your later points are all circular in reasoning, each lending support to and receiving it from the others (as well as from your original argument that foetuses should be considered alive). Thus considering each on its own merit weakens them by a large amount.

Nevertheless: to state that "every competent doctor knows that abortion results in someone's death" is quite projective, to say the least. As your own quotes demonstrate, there are doctors who do not consider the foetus to be alive, and therefore "know" that they are not causing the death of someone by any means. Otherwise you imply that a doctor not thinking as you do is not competent, something you have little if any judgement over and thus a heavyhanded ad hominem attack on your opposition (alternatively, a 'poisoning the wells' fallacy -- regardless, it is a gravely personal attack on pro-choice supports). As it stands, you would be best removing this statement from the essay entirely, as it does not support your argument at all.

Secondly, there are cases when mother's life is at risk. In such case, abortion is a regrettable secondary subject not the intention itself.

This makes no sense. The woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, therefore the explicit solution is to remove said pregnancy. In other words, abortion is quite clearly the intended outcome; it is impossible to end the pregnancy deliberately in order to preserve the woman's health, without abortion being the sole intention (unless one is describing forced labour and/or surgical birth which are acknowledged, but are not within context here). It seems you are in fact arguing against something which would help your cause here, to nil effect.

Therefore, it is wrong to call every abortion a murder. But abortion is and always will be direct killing of the innocent human being, always regrettable and never morally justifiable.

Here you restate a prior conclusion which is entirely disjoint from the section you are answering here. Doing so makes this section appear less like part of your argument, less of an aside discussion, and more of a mere vehicle to repeat the claim, and is thus highly unattractive to a critical viewer. Consider: why would the writer continue to say something, even without relation to the point at hand, if they are secure in that argument's logical basis? One could only think that they are not confident in such an argument and must resort to simply hammering it until the audience agrees.

This is not a complete list of points, but should be enough for now.— Unsigned, by: Nij / talk / contribs

Just a heads-up: AFAIK, User:Earthland has retired from the wiki, so you are arguing with a ghost. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexistischer Müll[edit]

Ich habe diese Post auf deine Kameradsprache geschrieben.

Dieser Aufsatz ist nur sexistischer Pferdscheiß. Deine Behauptung über Abtreibung ist gleich wie eine Behauptung dass, Frauen nicht Wahlrecht haben sollen. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Judy Ferris[edit]

Anti-choice activists on the internet are fond of citing the article written by Ferris about being a "pro-life" atheist, as this piece does repeatedly. (I believe it was first published at a now-defunct website called Rightgrrl.)

In fact, Ferris became a fundamentalist Christian very shortly after writing that article. I had considerable contact with her on line in the late 1990s in the personas she was then writing under, as which she did not disclose her name and previous claim to being an anti-choice atheist, and as which she stalked from from site to site and made very serious false allegations about me that exposed me to potential danger.

She can be reached here for verification of her present views and beliefs:

Yes, ultimately, the only way that I and another of her stalking victims were able to stop the problematic behaviour was by determining and threatening to expose the real identity of the persona engaging in it, which of course we did not do; upon realizing she had been caught, through strong hints given to her making it plain that we knew who she was, she immediately desisted.

She is still an anti-choice activist under her own name, of course, e.g.:

It is hardly honest, these many years later, to be citing the writing of an individual who is now a fundamentalist Christian as authority for the view that efforts to deny reproductive rights are consistent with atheism. They may well be -- misogyny crosses all lines -- but Ferris is not a good choice for making that argument.

Disclosure of her real views and beliefs is essential. =edit= oops, I see I am speaking to a ghost. ;) I suppose someone else can do the editing? — Unsigned, by: Bushwah / talk / contribs