In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Avatar]

What the heck is this mod edit? I request (French: "demander") an explanation and motivations for said edit. (I don't want to fight mods, but will if I have to, to the extent of getting banned - as long as it is public what is going on. Let everyone know how what I am saying is being censored.)

It's perfectly obvious that it hasn't been censored. It's been converted from a clickable link to one that you have to copy and paste in order to view it. The sole purpose of which is to ensure that anybody who watches it wants to watch it.

Only it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

Really? On what evidence do you base this fact?

"According to 'experts'". Who the heck is "an expert"?

Here is the list of "experts" who provided the opinions quoted in my post:

Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai

Hart Peterson, MD
Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,
Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, Cornell University Medical Center

William Rashbaum, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Seymour L. Romney, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn, Director, Gynecological Cancer Research, and former Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Allan Rosenfield, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn and Public Health, Acting Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Director, Center for Population and Family Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University

Herbert G. Vaughan, Jr. MD
Professor of Neuroscience, Neurology and Pediatrics, Director, Rose F. Kennedy Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Ming-Neng Yeh, MD
Associate Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ob/Gyn Ultrasound Laboratory, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center.

(Oh, I only quoted the most notable objections to the video, didn't bother with things like the fact that a properly performed procedure takes 1/3rd as long as implied in the video, or that at that stage of development, no forceps or other tools are necessary.)

Define "propaganda". What is it that you state and believe that is not "propaganda"?

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

Non-propaganda is factual information devoid of emotive content, speculation or supposition.

If I think something to be true, and not merely "my opinion", then look out. We will disagree on a cardinal level about what is "opinion" and what is "fact".

Naturally. Because you're of the opinion that only what you believe is fact.

I can easily suggest that it is only your "opinion" that you are alive, and by your lights, it would be difficult to dispute an opinion to the contrary. If I can establish that you are not alive (to the satisfaction of certain "experts"), and undercut all of your supposed "rights" (wherever those are derived from and on what basis they are claimed), then I guess I could do whatever I wanted with you.

If you can convince me that I'm not alive, then you can do whatever you want with me. I don't however think that it would be difficult to dispute however. (Unless you're a solipsist.)

By all means lay out the argument against me being alive. I'd be interested to hear it.

(Oh yes, I'm about to make the reposted link unclickable too. Anybody who wants to watch it can copy and paste. I doubt the inconvenience will prevent anybody who wants to see it from doing so.)

--A

[Avatar]

The definition that you choose to adopt in and of itself be of biological nature. But your excluding a great many other biological realities is in fact a subjective choice.

On the contrary, the excluded biological realities, like skin colour, are ones which do not factor in defining humanity. I'm sure you don't dispute that there are humans with many different skin colours. That being the case, skin colour is not a defining factor of humanity.

The stem cells are biologically compatible with humans. Stem cells from other animals have not (so far) been able to be used due to biological dissimilarity. It's not just because we say so.

So fetuses are more similar to the humans they grow into than every other mammal in the animal kingdom? All the things that the sciences have helped uys to discover

Being that we've got any number of laws against deliberately inflicting pain upon animals, it becomes difficult to make a case for turning a blind eye to late term abortions.

And I'm not in favour of late term abortions.

In fact, after doing some research into that video, I think I'd draw my line at the development of cortical matter.

I don't think you argue based on experiential grounds, or for that matter that you argue it because you don't think fetuses are human, but rather I imagine it's because you have more empathy for a mother than her fetus more than your having an apathy for the fetus.

Could be. Certainly I believe that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of an unborn child, given that the embryo or foetus isn't aware, and therefore cannot be conscious of (or capable of experiencing) loss.

--A

[rusmeister]

What the heck is this mod edit? I request (French: "demander") an explanation and motivations for said edit. (I don't want to fight mods, but will if I have to, to the extent of getting banned - as long as it is public what is going on. Let everyone know how what I am saying is being censored.)

It's perfectly obvious that it hasn't been censored. It's been converted from a clickable link to one that you have to copy and paste in order to view it. The sole purpose of which is to ensure that anybody who watches it wants to watch it.

Only it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

Really? On what evidence do you base this fact?

"According to 'experts'". Who the heck is "an expert"?

Here is the list of "experts" who provided the opinions quoted in my post:

Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai

Hart Peterson, MD
Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,
Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, Cornell University Medical Center

William Rashbaum, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Seymour L. Romney, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn, Director, Gynecological Cancer Research, and former Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Allan Rosenfield, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn and Public Health, Acting Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Director, Center for Population and Family Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University

Herbert G. Vaughan, Jr. MD
Professor of Neuroscience, Neurology and Pediatrics, Director, Rose F. Kennedy Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Ming-Neng Yeh, MD
Associate Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ob/Gyn Ultrasound Laboratory, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center.

(Oh, I only quoted the most notable objections to the video, didn't bother with things like the fact that a properly performed procedure takes 1/3rd as long as implied in the video, or that at that stage of development, no forceps or other tools are necessary.)

Define "propaganda". What is it that you state and believe that is not "propaganda"?

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

Non-propaganda is factual information devoid of emotive content, speculation or supposition.

If I think something to be true, and not merely "my opinion", then look out. We will disagree on a cardinal level about what is "opinion" and what is "fact".

Naturally. Because you're of the opinion that only what you believe is fact.

I can easily suggest that it is only your "opinion" that you are alive, and by your lights, it would be difficult to dispute an opinion to the contrary. If I can establish that you are not alive (to the satisfaction of certain "experts"), and undercut all of your supposed "rights" (wherever those are derived from and on what basis they are claimed), then I guess I could do whatever I wanted with you.

If you can convince me that I'm not alive, then you can do whatever you want with me. I don't however think that it would be difficult to dispute however. (Unless you're a solipsist.)

By all means lay out the argument against me being alive. I'd be interested to hear it.

(Oh yes, I'm about to make the reposted link unclickable too. Anybody who wants to watch it can copy and paste. I doubt the inconvenience will prevent anybody who wants to see it from doing so.)

--A

I'm not quite sure how to respond to you, Avatar. On the one hand, you are an intelligent person with opinions that differ radically from mine. My objection is that you are using your power as moderator to ensure that my arguments are weakened. Anyone who clicks on a link wants to watch it. In making it more difficult for people I see only misuse of moderator power to propagate your own POV.

I could respond with an equal number of experts with similar credentials who you would find as dubious as I find yours, and demonstrate that your charges of propaganda are spurious, but I think it unwise to play in the sandbox with a moderator who is going to use that power against me. You cannot maintain credibility as a neutral moderator AND debate in favor of abortion if you persist. I ask that you reconsider. At the very least, have a few other moderators, with at least one who opposes abortion, concur that it really IS necessary to make it difficult for people to access that link. (Upon which I'll probably leave the Watch, but at least you would cover the charge of abuse of power.)

[StevieG]

Personally I think it's a perfectly reasonable edit, and not used to weaken your argument, just to add a further warning for those who may not be able to stomach the video. Just posting the video (which I don't want to watch) has an impact. If we were arguing about gun law, I personally wouldn't want to see a domestic killing with someone's head blown off in order to convince me - words are enough, because I know I probably wouldn't have the stomach for it.

[sindatur]

Rus feel free to post your experts that say the video is genuine and explain away Avatar's experts' claims of discrepancies.

[Orlion]

Questions of censorship are tricky because there are so many ways to do it. Things are complicated that it can be done unintentionally. As far as I have been able to discern, Avatar doesn't fear any views, so I do not think he would censor on purpose. At the same time, not knowing it's an unclickable link could prevent some of us lazy people from viewing it So I think Rus' pointing out has had the effect that now everyone knows what they need to do to watch the video, which I think effectively counters any unintended effects of censorship.

I haven't seen the video yet, but I plan to.

As far as the pain thing goes....I'm, at this moment, uncertain that foetuses can or can not feel pain... it certainly is an interesting way of defining when signficant life would begin.

[Worm of Despite]

Finally, the comparison to knee surgery is invalid. No one is claiming that your knee is a separate thing from you. It is this incredibly serious claim that is simply not taken seriously. Especially when people claiming it are described as "Crusaders wearing helmet and sword".

Well--one can morally debate the Holocaust and take sides on it without seeing the actual, disturbing footage/pictures. I think the same goes with abortion. I'm saying seeing that video really is needless, is all. Especially since it is a shock video (or that's how it appears to me). I think it'd be more shocking if we just simply explain how abortion works in a non-biased, clinical manner. Then let both sides decide on the procedure; because whatever you say about it, it is a procedure in this United States and not a genocide or murder. Technically. Technically there's some guilty people in the criminal system who are actually not-guilty. But rioting or posting obvious propaganda (like that video) won't release them; you have to do it reasonably, rationally, and through the system.

Thus; I think people getting extreme or going overboard on the issue hinder their side, not help. They may even lose more followers or polarize their side. There's belief and reason--and then there's fanaticism. You can't stop this unless you discuss it rationally.

But as you've shown me; since it's human life it's hard not to put human emotion aside (I'm not saying get rid of it; just control it; it can be fuel for your issue or it can be the fire that gets out of control). Jumping up and down and going "Murder!" is not going to change the minds of the other side. So I don't retract or feel much of a need to explain the "Crusader" comment; it's simply true. I'll call anyone who can't see they're harming the pro-life side an extremist.

[Avatar]

I'm not quite sure how to respond to you, Avatar. On the one hand, you are an intelligent person with opinions that differ radically from mine. My objection is that you are using your power as moderator to ensure that my arguments are weakened. Anyone who clicks on a link wants to watch it. In making it more difficult for people I see only misuse of moderator power to propagate your own POV.

Your argument is in no way weakened. Nor, as I said before, is it censored in any way. Censorship would be if I removed the link. Anybody who wants to can watch the video. I prefer that they make a conscious choice to do so. It's no different from putting the plastic-wrapped magazine on the top shelf. Would you want a child to watch it? ( ) (Not that they couldn't, kids today are plenty tech-savvy enough.)

I could respond with an equal number of experts with similar credentials who you would find as dubious as I find yours, and demonstrate that your charges of propaganda are spurious...

By all means do so. I'm willing to entertain any opposing data.

I ask that you reconsider. At the very least, have a few other moderators, with at least one who opposes abortion, concur that it really IS necessary to make it difficult for people to access that link. (Upon which I'll probably leave the Watch, but at least you would cover the charge of abuse of power.)

Tell you what. Albeit that the moderatorly decision is entirely up to my discretion, I will nonetheless bring this to the attention of all the moderators, and the other admins, (several of whom oppose abortion to my certain knowledge) and ask for their opinion, to be given here in public. If the consensus is that my action constituted an abuse of power, I'll reverse my decision.

(Don't get any ideas everybody else. I must be feeling well-disposed toward Rus tonight.)

However, in exchange, I would ask that you not leave the Watch if the consensus goes against you. You win some, you lose some, it doesn't really matter. It may be annoying to argue against you sometimes, but that doesn't mean I have anything against you, or that the Watch is not a more interesting place with your presence.

(Oh, yes, and you have to post the refutation you promised.)

--A

[Cagliostro]

As a mini-mod, but mod nonetheless, I don't see this as censorship. The link is still there, and I don't see how it alters any intent. The restating what you stated is the only point of yours that I see any relevance in, but I can also see that it drives the point home that it is something nasty that you will be seeing if you go to the link.

And I'd expect the same on a link about clubbing baby seals if it showed graphic details. I am opposed to that, and truth be told, I'm opposed to abortion as well, though I think it should remain legal.

[Blackhawk]

I ask that you reconsider. At the very least, have a few other moderators, with at least one who opposes abortion, concur that it really IS necessary to make it difficult for people to access that link. (Upon which I'll probably leave the Watch, but at least you would cover the charge of abuse of power.)

though im not a moderator i would have to agree with Avatar..Rus... there is no reason for you to leave the watch.. maybe take a break from the Tank or the abortion section OK but there is no reason for you to leave the watch entirely due to this subject, and you were not censored in any way ..not one word that you typed was deleted as far as i can see... removing the link seems discretionary, some of us click and drag to scroll and i do not want to see 3rd trimester abortions which is probably what i would be exposed to were i to accidently click the link while scrolling...
even if you showed any stage of abortion i would probably not view it any more than i would view the Process of Slaughtering of Cows and Pigs to feed America, though i have seen part of that process as a child.

In this case i have allready had full page color tabloid sized brochures of 3rd Trimester abortions thrusted into my hands while i was in the Sixth and 7th Grade by Fanatics..so i dont need to see that again.. after all Rus..third trimester abortions are the minority in these procedures, possibly .01% of abortions are done in the third trimester, If you want to argue to make third trimester abortions illegal then i would probably have your back except in cases where the mothers life was at danger.... were you to show abortions that were much earlier on all we would see would be a blood clot, or something resembling a bean with a tail, which unfortunately for your cause does not show the horror that a third trimester abortion does.

And Lord foul is right.. you are hurting your cause more than helping it by going to extremes.

[I'm Murrin]

At the very least, have a few other moderators, with at least one who opposes abortion, concur that it really IS necessary to make it difficult for people to access that link. (Upon which I'll probably leave the Watch, but at least you would cover the charge of abuse of power.)

I'm not going to get involved in the discussion because I'd probably end up either sounding like an idiot or offending someone, but I will weigh in on this.

If Avatar had removed or obscured the link in some way then it could be seen as censorship, but he did neither of those things. I don't think the particular edit was entirely necessary, but it was not unreasonable, and it doesn't affect your argument.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't see any need for what Av did. I don't remember ever accidentally clicking on a link that was sufficiently described only to regret it for whatever reason.

I think the Watch is in new territory here. I don't remember any link to something as graphic about something that is surely objectionable to many people. I suppose this will set a precedent for future links that are as extreme. (Gratuitous sex and/or violence is, of course, another matter. This is quite relevant, though.) I don't know how we can come up with a rule for what should and should not be edited as Av did, and what is abuse of the mod's power. We don't want the Watch to be a place with hundreds, or even dozens of links to material that we can surely expect many to strongly object to. Of course, this being the first time in the Watch's several years that it's come up, I'm not sure the edit is necessary to save the Watch's atmosphere.

But Av's the mod here. Short of coming up with a list of criteria that we all agree on, which will be impossible , how can we have a blanket rule for the Watch? It's gonna come down to each mod modding in their forum as they think best. Which is what we have in this case.

[Worm of Despite]

I don't see any need for what Av did.

Since mods are coming from all over the globe to comment on this auspicious historical occasion in Kevin's Watch, I think I'll reply: I do think it was needful and a good thing he (Avatar) did. I think it was perfectly reasonable, especially since even I turned the vid off half-way through viewing it (and I've seen a lot of stuff; a LOT <--- see that? Seriously. I've seen shit you won't believe). Other people think Av's move was reasonable. So it's fine. Objectively. Empirically. Fine. This deserves less debate than the existence of quarks.

Short of coming up with a list of criteria that we all agree on, which will be impossible , how can we have a blanket rule for the Watch?

I think this has nothing to do with lists, criteria, or the dreaded Blanket Rule but Common Sense (yeah, I'm using William Blake capitalization on this sentence). If vid has potential to offend and DOES, then it should have a fair warning or some deus ex machina editing.

The reason we don't need criteria (and never will) is, as you said, this hasn't happened in years. Because most Kevin's Watchers would never post such slush. UNTIL NOW. GO:

Click here for soul-altering, offensive video-ness.

[sindatur]

Foul, I'm sorry to hear you went through that. I chose not to watch the Sadam Hussein hanging, because I felt it was something my soul needed to avoid, and he deserved to die.

I can't imagine experiencing the pain of a graphic video taped late term abortion, when you went into it thinking it was a graphic mid 2nd Trimester abortion.

Thank you for making it plain this is definitely not something I want to experience.

(BTW, I'm assuming due to things people have said that it depicts Late term abortion activity, but, I'm pretty sure the topic starts out claiming it's supporting rights for 20-something-weeks, if I'm wrong on these points, I apologize and Mods are welcome to strike my post for being stupid or inflamatory for no good reason)

[Orlion]

The reason we don't need criteria (and never will) is, as you said, this hasn't happened in years. Because most Kevin's Watchers would never post such slush. UNTIL NOW. GO:

Click here for soul-altering, offensive video-ness.

AHHH!!!! MY EYES!!! MY VIRGIN EYES!!!!!!

[Tjol]

The definition that you choose to adopt in and of itself be of biological nature. But your excluding a great many other biological realities is in fact a subjective choice.

On the contrary, the excluded biological realities, like skin colour, are ones which do not factor in defining humanity. I'm sure you don't dispute that there are humans with many different skin colours. That being the case, skin colour is not a defining factor of humanity.

Jesse Jackson would disagree with you just as much as David Duke, that skin color isn't a factor in defining humanity. That I think it doesn't is as subjective as thinking that a fetuses potential has no value even compared to the realised failures of so many adult humans.

The stem cells are biologically compatible with humans. Stem cells from other animals have not (so far) been able to be used due to biological dissimilarity. It's not just because we say so.

So fetuses are more similar to the humans they grow into than every other mammal in the animal kingdom? All the things that the sciences have helped uys to discover

Being that we've got any number of laws against deliberately inflicting pain upon animals, it becomes difficult to make a case for turning a blind eye to late term abortions.

And I'm not in favour of late term abortions.

In fact, after doing some research into that video, I think I'd draw my line at the development of cortical matter.

I don't think you argue based on experiential grounds, or for that matter that you argue it because you don't think fetuses are human, but rather I imagine it's because you have more empathy for a mother than her fetus more than your having an apathy for the fetus.

Could be. Certainly I believe that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of an unborn child, given that the embryo or foetus isn't aware, and therefore cannot be conscious of (or capable of experiencing) loss.

--A

None of that necessitates a comment from me, but some people (yourself not included) seem to frown on my not quoting everything a poster says even if you don't have anything to say in contradiction to it...so...this quote's for them.

[High Lord Tolkien]

[Worm of Despite]

Foul, I'm sorry to hear you went through that. I chose not to watch the Sadam Hussein hanging, because I felt it was something my soul needed to avoid, and he deserved to die.

Oh. Saddam has nothing on some stuff I've seen. Like Koreans. Preparing kittens. For salads.

[sindatur]

Foul, I'm sorry to hear you went through that. I chose not to watch the Sadam Hussein hanging, because I felt it was something my soul needed to avoid, and he deserved to die.

Oh. Saddam has nothing on some stuff I've seen. Like Koreans. Preparing kittens. For salads.

TMI, I'm Gay, hence, My 7 children are cats, and every one of them WE treasure the way "real" families treasure their children

I had a feeling from your response that you have been exposed to some really disturbing stuff, hence my sympathies for this specific incidence that actually did disturb you.

[lucimay]

At the very least, have a few other moderators, with at least one who opposes abortion, concur that it really IS necessary to make it difficult for people to access that link. (Upon which I'll probably leave the Watch, but at least you would cover the charge of abuse of power.)

I'm not going to get involved in the discussion because I'd probably end up either sounding like an idiot or offending someone, but I will weigh in on this.

If Avatar had removed or obscured the link in some way then it could be seen as censorship, but he did neither of those things. I don't think the particular edit was entirely necessary, but it was not unreasonable, and it doesn't affect your argument.

i'll go with murrin on this one, ruse. Av's intention does not, in any way to me, seem to include censoring you. well i've known him a long time too and i just know he's not that type of fella. *shrug* you may take my opinion with a grain of salt if you so choose but, honestly, as murrin says, if he'd intended to censor he would have removed the link entirely.
he's trying to be fair.