Johnny-Knoxville

Rhetorical object lessons — Four ways to improve your game

Like most people, I try to avoid raw sewage. Generally speaking, human waste isn’t something that I have much of an affinity for. It’s for this reason that I have never considered going into a portable toilet and then having someone knock it over. However, if you find yourself struggling to understand just why this might be bad idea, I have good news. You’re not alone.

Johnny-Knoxville
Yeah, you know where this is going…

There is an individual who has built an entire career around asking one question: Is it possible to completely ignore the rules of common sense and somehow survive? The answer, surprisingly, has been yes. Through his Jackass franchise, Johnny Knoxville has spent years performing acts of monumental stupidity that most animals are clever enough not to try. So if you’re one of those folks who simply can’t comprehend what repeated groin strikes might look like, don’t be alarmed. Johnny has illustrated it over and over, so that now you (hopefully) won’t feel the need to find out for yourself.

Jackass-logo
Professor Knoxville: Beacon of wisdom.

While most of us probably won’t gain much knowledge from reviewing Johnny Knoxville’s bad decisions, there are some choices that it would be helpful to go over: specifically, the way that our opponents choose to frame and discuss the issues. By observing this, we can develop some helpful dos and don’ts to remember when presenting our message.

1. Disrupt the Narrative

Thanks in part to the mainstream media, there’s an established narrative when it comes to abortion. We’re told that the debate is a conflict between the right of women to control their bodies and a desire to enforce religious doctrine. When confronted with this sort of false choice, many pro-lifers begin by explaining that we’re not at all concerned with controlling a woman’s body. Rather, our desire is to protect the growing child inside her.

Now, this is of course a completely truthful response, but it’s also the expected one. What’s not expected is when we explain that abortion isn’t just used to kill children – it’s used to hurt women, too.

A good way to start off is by pointing out that in many abortions, the woman’s choice had nothing to do with it. By some accounts, the majority of women who undergo abortions report feeling that they were pressured into it, with those who resist often facing violence.

Easy access to abortion also makes for an easy way to cover up sexual abuse. It helps to point out specific examples of this, like that of John Blanks, who brought his daughter to Planned Parenthood for a no-questions-asked abortion after getting her pregnant. Or recall how in 2006, staff at a Connecticut Planned Parenthood abortion facility were helpful enough to turn a teenage girl back over to her abuser once the appointment was finished. The fact that Live Action caught Planned Parenthood staff offering to help pimps exploit their underage prostitutes is also something of a narrative-changer.

Finally, there’s a word that you should never hesitate to toss out: gendercide. Mention that in some cultures, a daughter isn’t valued the way that a son is, with the result being that many girls never live past their first ultrasound. Unsurprisingly, Live Action has video of some Planned Parenthood staff who were very willing to dispose of unwanted daughters through sex-selective abortions. If you ask an abortion supporter whether this practice upholds the rights of women, then there’s a good chance that you’re about to see what a contorted answer looks like.

Planned Parenthood is helping girls…to come out in pieces.

2. Find Common Ground

The first step in bringing someone over to your side often involves finding something that you already agree on. Since the pro-life message values and respects women, you can try to use the facts listed above to find common ground with someone who professes to also care about females. After all, it’s difficult to argue that helping a man like Christian McQueen abort his child after a “pump ‘n dump” does much for female empowerment.

Conversely, if you happen to oppose capital punishment, then you can convey to other death penalty opponents how the methods used to execute the unborn would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment if they were inflicted on a convict. In Wilkerson v. Utah, the Supreme Court declared that “punishments of torture,” including dismemberment, disembowelment, and burning a prisoner alive would be violations of the Eighth Amendment. Yet, while these “atrocities” can’t be imposed on a convicted murderer, they’re perfectly acceptable when used to get rid of a baby.

Some abortion supporters will contend that they don’t want to see children stuck with moms who have no desire or ability to raise them. You can assert that pro-lifers don’t want that to happen, either, but we would prefer that these kids go to the many couples who are waiting to adopt them instead of getting killed. That’s also why we support pregnancy care centers that offer resources to moms in need. Given that most people are at least little queasy about abortion, you can usually get them to agree that abortion alternatives are a good thing.

The trick here is to not get sidetracked onto other issues – you want to establish that abortion violates some common principle or standard that you both already agree on and build from there.

3. Avoid Name-Calling

Some years ago, I attended a conservative political event that was surrounded by protestors outside the doors. They were a rather vocal bunch, with one of them taking the time to inform me that I was a racist who hated minorities. I was surprised to learn this about myself; my biracial girlfriend was even more puzzled when she heard the news.

Now, words like “racist,” “misogynist,” and a number of other derogatory terms can definitely be appropriate when the facts clearly justify them. As a rule, however, the better approach is to attack a policy or idea instead of the individual who is presenting it. Since your goal is to change minds, it usually doesn’t help to insult the person you’re speaking to.

Similarly, demeaning language typically doesn’t look good to whoever else is listening in on your conversation. And perhaps most importantly, treating others the way that we wish to be treated is simply the decent thing to do. This last point goes along with the next piece of advice, which is…  

4. Try Not to Cut People Off

Occasionally, you’ll run into someone whose ideas sound so ridiculous or offensive that you’re tempted to interrupt or silence him. This temptation should be resisted. First, there’s the issue of common courtesy (see above). Second, like name-calling, it looks bad to others who are observing the debate. Interrupting or talking over your discussion partner comes off as insecure, petty, or vindictive – none of which is the sort of perception that you want to create. Further, it can become an escalating habit. At first you might only interrupt people occasionally, but pretty soon you start to sound like this:

Well, good day to you too…

While you don’t want to let others run roughshod over you, allowing your opponent to present his or her views gives the impression that you’re considerate. It also leaves you better-equipped to offer counter-arguments to whatever message that he or she is trying to convey.

Although polls show that an increasing number of people are identifying as pro-life, large chunks of society remain hostile to our views. By observing how the issues are debated and framed, we can improve the presentation of our message. Because with all due respect to Mr. Knoxville, object lessons don’t always need to involve jackassery.

  • PrincessJasmine4

    Good article!
    I think both sides would do well to follow this advise
    Both sides are guilty of jackassery

    • MamaBear

      So right Jasmine. It is imperative that those of us who are pro-life take the high ground. Name calling and other rudeness may sometimes be effective temporarily, but it never wins hearts and minds.
      Change needs to be not just in laws, or we will eventually fight the battle again.

      • PrincessJasmine4

        True… very true.
        If I was a fence sitter, I’d go over to the side that was kinder to the opponent while being effective.

        I’ve been arguing with some pro aborts on mommyish and the only thing they have is vitriol hyperbole and name calling.
        It’s pretty sad.
        This is how they think and this is how they treat people with whom they disagree.
        Even if they had a valid point it would be lost in their depravity.

        We need to take the high road, yes… but I think that I’m going to have to start fighting fire with fire at this point. :-)

  • Hierophant2

    I find it rather funny that you thought I would let you post an anti-abortion link on my blog. In case you didn’t notice, I am a rabid pro-abortion supporter and there’s no way I would let you post this shit anywhere on my blog.

    • Adam Peters

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what I’m referring to. Thank you for providing an example of it.

      • Hierophant2

        Not sure what “example” you’re referring to. YOU came to MY blog to advertise this entry of yours. You KNEW my blog was pro-abortion. Who’s the hypocrite here?

        • Adam Peters

          “I am a rabid pro-abortion supporter and there’s no way I would let you post this shit anywhere on my blog.”

          See points 3 and 4 in the article above.

          • Hierophant2

            You seem to be so confused you can’t even keep the conversation straight. Your article is comprised of advice to anti-abortion people, therefore it has no relevance to me. I couldn’t care less what you think I should be doing. People like you need to be silenced and I merely do my tiny part in helping that along.

          • Adam Peters

            The point is to provide advice on how NOT to come across as being petty, intolerant, insecure, or vindictive. By calling other opinions “shit” and saying that we need to be silenced, you’r demonstrating exactly how we don’t want to sound.

          • Hierophant2

            I don’t care how anti-abortion people “want to sound.” You being “nice” and “open” does not make your position any less hateful or evil. I will still silence you whenever I can. But whatever, good luck with all that.

          • Adam Peters

            You may not care, but I do (that’s why I wrote the article), and you’re helping me to show everyone how insults and foul language only make you look bad. That’s why I said thanks for your example–you’re helping to improve pro-life social skills :)

          • Hierophant2

            As I said, it doesn’t matter if you are the nicest person in the world or have better social skills. You are still anti-abortion. No matter how foul-mouthed I may be, I will always be on the side of equality and civil liberties, and you never will be. Gloat all you want, but in the end you’re the one who has to carry the hate, not me.

            Also, you seriously believe that bi-racial people cannot be racist, which is ridiculous. Anyone can be racist. Are you really this stupid?

          • Adam Peters

            Look, we care about everyone, but one of the groups that we’re most concerned about here is the one that is the most oppressed: the unborn. Although they have heartbeats, brain waves and (later on) the ability to feel pain, they enjoy NO protection under the law and can be killed on a whim. This is rank discrimination of the worst kind and out of compassion, we feel compelled to reach out and help. This is a sign of love, not hatefulness.

            What is hateful is calling someone “stupid,” “evil,” an “asshole,” and referring to his ideas as “shit.” I have done none of these things (in this conversation, at least), while you have.

          • Hierophant2

            “Look, we care about everyone,”
            I did not come here to argue your hate speech. Keep your blatant lies to yourself. Yes, you people ARE hateful towards everyone, but especially women and children. The fact that you think I am hateful for insulting your feelings, when you think you can get away with actually fighting against people’s basic human rights, is laughable at best. You people live in a fantasy land. Go talk to your cuckoo clock, you religious lunatic.

          • Adam Peters

            My objective here was to give a demonstration of how not to conduct oneself in a debate, and you’ve provided it. Some young pro-lifers are going to read your comments and realize that it’s important to refine their message and present themselves in a civilized manner.

            You sir, have done your part to help our cause in these early hours of the morning, and for that I thank you ;)

          • PrincessJasmine4

            Adam, I really think we should let her go on in this way.

            We’re not here to try to reach the evil hardened hearts of the pro aborts. Most of their ilk are beyond help.

            Our focus is the fence sitter.
            Her attitude actually helps us.
            I say… she should keep up the good work.

            History will one day look back at the pro aborts in the same manner we now look at slave owners. It can’t be easy for her to be on the wrong side of history… but we should use her hate to our advantage.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            Are you serious?

            You can’t possibly believe that you’re the one fighting for human rights.
            This is truly laughable.
            Even liberal Europe voted down abortion being a “human right”
            It’s no one’s right to unjustly take the life of another. Not the state not a man and not even a woman.

            The most basic of human rights starts with the right to life.
            How do you not know this?

            It’s you who lives in a fantasy world.

            I find it quite fascinating that you feel the need to inject religion into this.
            Where in this article did he even mention religion?
            There are about 6 million of us secular pro lifers out there, yet you chose to ignore us.
            Why?
            Ah well… keep up your prejudices… It’s working to your detriment.

          • DianaG2

            It certainly is.

          • MarcusFenix

            Because nothing says “hate speech” like someone who says “we care about everyone”, especially when coupled with activities like providing counceling, food, diapers, medical services free of charge, and job placement (in some cases) for mothers, newborns, and so on.. Yup, that’s some *powerful* hate speech right there. /sarc off

            I don’t think you’re hateful, so much. Angry and petty, perhaps. I would say, if this is your “hateful” tone…it’s kind of sad.

          • DianaG2

            What about the basic human rights of the unborn?

            The U.S. Supreme Court said that the unborn have no right to life, because that would be a civil right, and civil rights do not accrue until birth.

            Yet, deep down, most know that is wrong.

            Just as most (at least many?) knew the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Sanford was wrong:

            ” . . . the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court . . It is now widely regarded as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. ”

            The Evening Journal of Albany, New York editorialized:

            “The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handful of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs. Buchanan took the oath of fealty to them on the steps of the Capitol last Wednesday. The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be . . . that human Slavery is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!”

          • MamaBear

            Actually, it does matter. Very much. You have obviously never studied either debate or logic. You speak of civil liberties, yet you wish to silence your opposition? You didn’t study the Constitution either.
            The advise Adam gave about keeping the discussion civil is quite typical of things you would hear in any entry level debating course. Seeking to silence your opponent, refusing to engage in dialogue, is evidence that you cannot support your position through facts and logic. You can never win a civilized debate if you refuse to listen to the other side.

          • Adam Peters

            An excellent synopsis, MamaBear.

          • MamaBear

            Thank you, Adam.

          • DianaG2

            But, pro-aborts don’t care about winning a debate.

            They only care about getting what they want.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            He never said that bi-racial people cannot be racist.
            Please re-read the article.

            I’m coming to the collusion that most pro aborts are anti social.
            You’d have to be in order to condone the killing of our most helpless and innocent.

          • DianaG2

            Sociopathic.

          • DianaG2

            Abortion is equality and civil liberties??

            For whom?

            Certainly not the little son or daughter inside her or his mom. Because she or he dies by abortion.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            hah! you see Adam! I’ve been telling you guys this for months and months!
            The M.O of the pro abort (womb lynchers if you will) is to silence the opposition.

            Now we finally get an admission!

            Good job…Hierophant! How very.. Stalinesque of you.

          • Aletha

            Wow. Womb lynchers? You call this taking the high ground?

            I came here because Adam had the audacity to send me an email. I decided not to ignore that because I wanted to make a point, though I fully expect it to fall on deaf ears.

            I tend to be a bit more patient with people who disagree with me than Meghan Murphy or Hierophant2, but nonetheless, I think this “pro-life” argument Adam presents is farfetched, at best. You know the term, straw man? Beware of overgeneralizing about your opponents; it makes you look stupid, even if you think you are being thoughtful. Also, the issue of the right to abortion is not a game to be won or lost; it is an issue of people like you attempting to impose your beliefs on women who want to choose not to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term. In other words, abortion is a painful personal decision, and the beliefs of anyone else do not give them any right to interfere with that decision. If you do not approve, that is your business; you can think whatever you like as long as you mind your own business.

          • Adam Peters

            “In other words, abortion is a painful personal decision…”

            I would think it’s especially painful for the one being aborted.

            “If you do not approve, that is your business; you can think whatever you like as long as you mind your own business.”

            Well, one could also argue that it’s fine if you’re opposed to sexual harassment, racism, or any number of evils as long as you don’t push those beliefs on others. We’re opposed to abortion because we recognize that no one has the right to arbitrarily take the life of another, so no, we’re not going to start minding our business any time soon.

          • Aletha

            Thanks for demonstrating why Meghan Murphy would not waste her time or space on you, Adam Peters and his gang of true believers. We have heard it all before, us evil feminist murderers. It is your assumption and belief that a fetus nowhere near able to breathe air is a human being whose right to live trumps the right of the mother to do what she wills with her body. The vast majority of abortions are somewhere in that stage, and the vast majority of exceptions are done for medical reasons. I mentioned straw man for several reasons, because you use examples that are unrepresentative, and analogies that are completely inappropriate given the context of the long history of women as property of men, and the continuing attempts of pompous lecturing moralizers to equate abortion at any stage to murder, evil, crime, or discrimination, which they think makes it their business to attempt to interfere or prosecute, and the mess male theories in general have made of human relations, not to mention the rest of the world.

            Oh, and your example of men pressuring women to have abortions was rich. This fight is not about men wanting to avoid having to deal with their children the women want. That is relatively rare, and no feminist would support an abortion for that purpose. Much rarer is abortion done on a whim, or arbitrarily. These are straw men. As I predicted, deaf ears who twist everything into their little black and white sound bites. Your argument is circular. You cannot see that? No doubt you think mine is. Too bad. Learned blindness is such a waste of mind. I doubt I will be back, sao flame away with your reactionary wisdom!

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, I won’t flame you…but I can correct you (or refute, if you prefer) easily enough, and just in time to finish getting ready for the second leg of my vacation. :)

            “Thanks for demonstrating why Meghan Murphy would not waste her time or
            space on you, Adam Peters and his gang of true believers.”

            Because asking people to be polite, or at least not act like a jackass, is such a horrible thing to subscribe to? People shouldn’t “waste time” on reading things because…trying to keep things civil or somehow from devolving into a shouting match is wrong? It’s not difficult to make a point without lobbing insults or ad hominems, as tempting as it is to do so. It only dilutes your argument when you use them. If you can’t, then that’s fine. Don’t be angry when someone else takes the higher road.

            “The vast majority of abortions are somewhere in that stage, and the vast majority of exceptions are done for medical reasons.”

            And…

            “Much rarer is abortion done on a whim, or arbitrarily.”

            Well, Guttmacher…one of the pro-abortion’s go-to people, have something to say about it. For reference, please read:
            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

            Less than 2% (actually, it’s somewhere in the 1-1.5% group, but could be even less) have an abortion for rape/incest/medical necessity. That leaves between 98% and 99% who have it done as an elective procedure. From the link, 3/4th stated that having a baby would “dramatically change their lives”…which is sort of a no brainer when you break it down. The next percentage, at 73%, stated cost as the factor.

            I’m not sure what exception you’re trying to site, so feel free to clarify, but…if it was a typo and you were saying that abortions were done primary for exceptions like medical necessity, the stats don’t bear that out at all. Except for the less than 2%, abortions are provided for anything except medical problems/exceptions. Your statement about abortion being done on a whim, or that it’s arbitrary, flies in the face of 98% of them or more being done exactly in that manner.

            ” …given the context of the long history of women as property of men, and
            the continuing attempts of pompous lecturing moralizers to equate
            abortion at any stage to murder, evil, crime, or discrimination, which
            they think makes it their business to attempt to interfere or prosecute.”

            Yet, you’re on a site run by Lila Rose..a woman. The majority of authors and contributors, not to mention those in the comments section, are all women. Pro-life groups aren’t just the “good ole boys club” or just all men. You might not have meant that in such a respect, but coupled with what came before, it sounds like it. Women drive the pro-life debate regularly, at the forefront.

            “and the mess male theories in general have made of human relations, not to mention the rest of the world.”

            A little misanthropic, don’t you think?

            “I mentioned straw man for several reasons, because you use examples that
            are unrepresentative, and analogies that are completely inappropriate…”

            And

            “These are straw men.”

            That you have yet to actually unveil and correct. If the argument is factually wrong, or falls under a fallacy, then expose the fallacy and state why it’s wrong with proof.

            “Your argument is circular. You cannot see that? No doubt you think mine is.”

            Well, since you don’t really detail how that works, or refute it with anything except rhetoric, then we’re left to guess. I don’t think your argument is circular. It’s just not supported with facts or any actual refutation of what’s here other than some basic rhetoric.

            “Learned blindness is such a waste of mind. I doubt I will be back, sao flame away with your reactionary wisdom!”

            Clearly not reactionary, but reading off of what amounts to a liberal talking points memo (to me) is willful ignorance. You’re not backing up what you believe or say with facts, logical argument, or anything really rational.

            People (myself, but certainly others here) are more than willing to have a rational, calm discussion with anyone who wants to have it…but that’s not possible while you think everyone who disagrees with you is either out to enslave you, convert you to some religion, or hates women. If you really want to have a proper discussion, then please feel free to do so and others will respond in kind.

          • Adam Peters

            “Oh, and your example of men pressuring women to have abortions was rich.”

            There are studies showing that as many of half of the women who have abortions do so because they are pressured into: http://www.publiceye.org/ark/reproductive-justice/articles/forced-abortions-america.php And yes, many of them do face violence from men when they refuse: http://afterabortion.org/2012/the-many-faces-of-coercion/

            “That is relatively rare, and no feminist would support an abortion for that purpose.”

            Well, a member of Canada’s parliament attempted to pass a bill that would make it a crime to pressure a woman into getting an abortion after one of his constituents was murder when she refused one. Known as “Roxanne’s Law,” it was named for the victim, and it was successfully opposed by those who felt it would support “this idea of fetal rights”: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/10/29/will_roxannes_law_turn_back_clock.html

            “…and the mess male theories in general have made of human relations, not to mention the rest of the world.”

            I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but Live Action was founded by a woman and women make up the bulk of those who write for it (check out our contributors page). This has nothing to do with “male theories”–it’s about defending those who can’t defend themselves.

            By the way, if you’re interested in reading more about Meghan Murphy and what her idea’s lead to for women, you can check out my latest article right here:
            http://liveactionnews.org/tucker-max-and-meghan-murphy-when-opposites-attract/

          • Aletha

            From the Star article:

            That is because the bill refers to the result of conception as a child, which Leslie said could lead to a legal recognition that a fetus has the same Charter rights to life and security as a person.

            “I really see this bill as reopening the door to this idea of fetal rights because the bill actually refers to a fetus as child,” said Leslie.

            That is why the bill was opposed, not because feminists support the idea of men coercing women to have abortions. Perhaps its language was not intended to reopen that door, but that is unlikely to be reassuring to feminists, who have good reason to be wary of such language, which was more likely inserted to make feminists look bad for opposing the bill. The Democrats played a similar trick on the Republicans with the Violence Against Women Act, inserting language they knew Republicans would find hard to swallow. I really find it hard to believe people who claim to be interested in a rational argument must twist words and motives around like that. That is not conducive to any kind of rational discussion. Nor is refusing to accept the validity of a point and then claiming the point has not been made.

            BTW, Marcus, I was referring to the exceptions to abortions done before the fetus can breathe air. Most abortions are done soon after the woman finds out she is pregnant; women know the longer they wait, the more dangerous the procedure is to their own health, so late term abortions, which are a small minority, are usually done for medical reasons. You noted that these are quite a small percentage, yet I see here abortion described as this gruesome, violent procedure, which does not at all resemble the vast majority of abortions.

            Generally to say something is done on a whim, or arbitrarily, means it is done for no good reason. Abortion is never a casual decision. That you do not approve of the reason is does not make it your business to intervene, or make the woman or her doctor a criminal. Women are not property or subject to your ideas of morality. Get used to it.

            BTW, just because women may subscribe to male theories does not mean they did not spring from doctrines created by males to oppress women. I am misanthropic? Did you mean misandrist? Do you think human relations or the world is in fine shape, or that male theories have not made a colossal mess of the world?

          • Adam Peters

            “Abortion is never a casual decision.”

            If you really believe that, then I recommend you read about Tucker Max in my latest article:

            http://liveactionnews.org/tucker-max-and-meghan-murphy-when-opposites-attract/

            Or, you could you just read the chapter of his second book called “Tucker Max: Baby Killer,” where he says, “Due to the potent combination of my sexual recklessness and the slutty nature of some of the girls I have slept with, I have accumulated enough stories and anecdotes about abortion that they could name a Planned Parenthood clinic after me.” He then goes on to recount the many instances in which he has cajoled women (Tucker prefers the terms “sluts” and “whores”) into aborting his children.

            Conversely, you could take a look at Christian McQueen, author of “The 10 Slut Commandments.” After offering helpful advice on how to denigrate a woman and play on her emotional vulnerabilities, he tells his readers to convince said woman to get an abortion in the event that she becomes pregnant so that one can then ditch her and avoid all responsibility. On a similar note, please review the art of the “pump ‘n dump,” as well. http://www.returnofkings.com/12436/the-10-slut-commandments

            These attitudes have recently crystalized in the form of the bro-choice movement, a group of guys who have the exact same political goals that you do with respect to abortion. They understand that being able to talk a woman into killing an unplanned baby will result in them getting “laid more.”
            http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/16/brochoice-meet-the-men-who-want-abortion-legal-for-the-sake-of-more-sex-n1641792

            What you don’t seem to realize is that the group that has been helped the most by easy access to abortion is predatory males. It allows them an simple way to use and abuse women without having to take responsibility for the children that they create, and it’s a problem that pro-abortion feminists are helping to promote.

            “That you do not approve of the reason is does not make it your business to intervene, or make the woman or her doctor a criminal.”

            Is it my business to intervene if she tosses her baby into a garbage can a day after the child was born? If it is, then why wasn’t it my business what she did the day before that?

            “…so late term abortions, which are a small minority, are usually done for medical reasons.”

            Nope. The Guttmacher Institute (you trust them, right?) released a study showing that a good chunk of them happen because the mother didn’t know she was pregnant or her circumstances had changed: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3811806b.html

            Also, there are over one million abortions every year in America, so even a few percent of them translates into tens of thousands. You don’t see why someone might get upset over tens of thousands of children being torn apart piece-by-piece?

            “Do you think human relations or the world is in fine shape, or that male theories have not made a colossal mess of the world?”

            No, the world is in lousy shape. A doctrine that says it’s ok to cut up a little girl or boy simply for reasons of convenience isn’t making it any better. Further, please explain what’s uniquely “male” about a desire to protect children?

          • Adam Peters

            “Abortion is never a casual decision.”

            If you believe this, then I suggest that you read about Tucker Max in my latest article: http://liveactionnews.org/tucker-max-and-meghan-murphy-when-opposites-attract/ Or, you could just read the chapter of Tucker’s second book that’s called “Tucker Max: Baby Killer,” where he says, “Due to the potent combination of my sexual recklessness and the slutty nature of some of the girls I have slept with, I have accumulated enough stories and anecdotes about abortion that they could name a Planned Parenthood clinic after me.” The chapter details the many times that Tucker has cajoled women (Tucker prefers to call them “sluts” and “whores”) into having abortions.

            You also might want to check out Christian McQueen, author of the “Ten Slut Commandments.” Christian offers a step-by-step guide on how to denigrate a woman and play on her vulnerabilities. He also advises his readers that if they happen get a woman pregnant then they should convince her to have an abortion so she can be quickly ditched. See also the art of the “pump ‘n dump.” http://www.returnofkings.com/12436/the-10-slut-commandments

            These ideas have crystallized around something called the “bro-choice” movement. It involves a bunch of guys who have the exact same political goals that you do with respect to abortion. These individuals recognize that if they can legally convince a woman to kill an unborn baby then they’ll be able avoid the consequences of their actions and thus “get laid more.”
            http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/16/brochoice-meet-the-men-who-want-abortion-legal-for-the-sake-of-more-sex-n1641792
            What you don’t seem to realize is that the group that has been helped most by easy access to abortion is predatory men. Simply put, it allows them to use and abuse women while avoiding responsibility for the children that they create–all thanks in part to pro-abortion feminists.

          • Adam Peters

            “That you do not approve of the reason is does not make it your business to intervene, or make the woman or her doctor a criminal.”

            Is it my business if a woman throws her baby into a garbage can the day after her child is born? If it is, then why wasn’t it my business what she did the day before that?

          • Adam Peters

            “Do you think human relations or the world is in fine shape, or that male theories have not made a colossal mess of the world?”
            The world is in lousy shape. The idea that it’s ok to kill a little boy or girl simple because he or she is inconvenient isn’t making it any better. Further, exactly what is “male” about wanting to protect children?

          • Adam Peters

            “…late term abortions, which are a small minority, are usually done for medical reasons.”

            According to the Guttmacher Institute (you trust them, right?), a good chunk of them are for completely non-medical reasons. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3811806b.html

            Further, there are over one million abortions every year in the US, which means that even if only a few percent of them are after the first trimester, that still translates into tens of thousands of them. You don’t see why someone might get a little bothered by the idea of tens of thousands of children being ripped apart, piece-by-piece?

          • Aletha

            But that is not what bothers you; you oppose abortion at any stage, regardless of the procedure used. Late-term abortion usually refers to third trimester abortion, or at least after the fifth month, and very few of those are done for non-medical reasons.

            “In a study that asked women to identify factors that delayed their efforts to obtain an abortion, those who sought an abortion during the second trimester reported greater delays than first-trimester patients at each step of the process, from suspecting that they were pregnant to coming to the clinic. Moreover, logistical problems, such as difficulties in finding a provider, were widespread and contributed to delays for almost two-thirds of second-trimester patients.

            Twelve percent of abortions in the United States are performed during the second trimester, when costs, complications and mortality are higher than in the first trimester.”

            88% is a rather large majority. Take away those delays and it would be much larger. Third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare and should never be done for non-medical reasons, because they are more dangerous than normal childbirth.

            Spare me your phony concern for the use and abuse of women by predatory men. That has been going on since the dawn of patriarchy, and has nothing to do with legal abortion. The culture and the legal system both facilitate male abuse of women. Do you imagine that the life of a woman is better if she has the baby of a man who used her? Dream on. But then, what should I expect? This organization Live Action is the one who carried out that bogus sting of Planned Parenthood.

            http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/04/the-sting-that-wasnt-right-wing-media-hype-bogu/175984

            I doubt I will waste any more time on this pointless argument. I would not have bothered at all, but I enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately, I cannot say this one qualifies.

          • Adam Peters

            How the sting was bogus? Did Amy Woodruff not work for Planned Parenthood? Do you have evidence that we doctored the footage of her? Does she not offer to set up involuntary abortions on underage prostitutes? I’d be interested to hear your answers.

          • Aletha

            Amy Woodruff was fired, and Live Action and its allies failed to mention that Planned Parenthood reported their suspicions of a sex trafficking ring to the authorities. Why? Because that did not fit the story of them aiding and abetting sex traffickers?

          • Adam Peters

            Would Planned Parenthood have gotten suspicious that their employees were willing to help sex traffickers if we hadn’t approached said employees pretending to be sex traffickers? Planned Parenthood didn’t seem too interested in looking into the problem before we showed.

          • Adam Peters

            We also have video that shows other employees have been willing to help:

            Statutory Rapists
            http://www.liveaction.org/monalisa/

            Fans of Gendercide
            http://www.liveaction.org/gendercide/

            and

            Racists
            http://www.liveaction.org/the-planned-parenthood-racism-project/

          • Aletha

            Do you understand the concept of entrapment? Is it possible that these Planned Parenthood employees played along to try to get your impostors to reveal something that the authorities could use to track them down and bust them? I think it is. It is also possible they smelled a rat and played along to find out what the game was all about. I think it is even possible Amy Woodruff was playing along, but Planned Parenthood decided it was not worth taking a chance on her, so they fired her. Regardless, do you have any evidence that Planned Parenthood has actually assisted a real sex trafficker? Somehow I doubt such a man would have the nerve to try getting help from them; he would have too much to lose, no? Since your impostors had nothing to lose, they could play the role to the hilt and create situations where no matter how the staffer reacted, she would look bad. That was the purpose of the whole stunt, was it not?

            Entrapment is not a game, or a deception for noble purposes. Not when it is done by Live Action, law enforcement, or the National Security Agency, which takes credit for stopping “terrorist” activity that turns out to be nothing more than a frame up. Some allege that nearly all of the “terrorist” plots they claim to have stopped were such frame up jobs. My point is that a clever frame up can create a crime that would not have transpired otherwise. So this alleged problem Planned Parenthood has with workers assisting sex traffickers, or other kinds of abusers of women, is most likely a product of the imaginations of those who wish to believe the worst of them.

          • Adam Peters

            “Regardless, do you have any evidence that Planned Parenthood has actually assisted a real sex trafficker?”

            Well, there’s no doubt that child abuser have gone to Planned Parenthood to cover up their crimes. Adam Gault brought the teenager that he had been abusing to them for an abortion, and Planned Parenthood turned her back over to him when they were done.

            http://archive.lifenews.com/state3372.html

            A man in Ohio brought his abuse victim to a Planned Parenthood facility for an abortion, resulting in her eventually suing the organization.

            http://townhall.com/news/religion/2010/12/21/life_digest_judge_rules_planned_parenthood_center_broke_ohio_law;_

            And, John Blanks Jr. went to Planned Parenthood with his teenage daughter for a no-questions asked abortion after getting her pregnant.

            http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/10/state-2279/

            Weekly Standard writer Charlotte Allen provides a good summary of the problem here:

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/223livny.asp

            You have yet to address the evidence I presented that many women who get abortions are pressured to do so, sometimes through threats of violence. I would argue that this makes the abortion industry a systemic enabler of oppression.

          • Adam Peters

            As to the sex trafficking issues, seven former Planned Parenthood employees (including former clinic director Abby Johnson) publicly announced their suspicions that the organization was helping sex traffickers as well as other perpetrators of violence against women and children.

            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/letter-from-planned-parenthood-employees-to-congress

          • Aletha

            I read that article. I think your statement is quite a stretch. Regardless, if the evidence against Planned Parenthood is so solid, why are they still in business?

            I should say, I have my own issues with Planned Parenthood; I think they are much too cozy with Obama and the Democrats in general, despite his affirmation of the Hyde Amendment, basically throwing feminists under the bus to get Obamacare passed, for instance. Perhaps Planned Parenthood should be less cautious of invading privacy and more probing in suspicious circumstances, but that is a double-edged sword. As the saying goes, hindsight is 20-20, but what warrants suspicion is not so easy to judge in the moment.

            This culture is a systemic enabler of oppression. That men work the system to their advantage is a given. Why would abortion be immune? It should be the choice of a woman whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term. A prospective father should not be able to pressure her to decide one way or the other, but all too often, that does happen. Is that because abortion is legal, or because the culture is built on subordination? If women should not have abortions because sometimes men pressure women into abortions the women do not want, why not conclude women should not work, because sometimes male co-workers or superiors pressure women to have sex the women do not want?

            Too bad your theory that abortion is murder depends on the assumption that a fertilized egg is a human child with the right to life, but an unfertilized egg is not. Conception does not magically create a new human life out of nowhere; that fertilized egg has to be nurtured in the womb for several months before it has any chance to survive. In other words, fertilization is just one step in the creation of a new human being. Fertilization is necessary, but not sufficient, to bring a new human life into this world.

          • Adam Peters

            Here’s another article on the John Blanks case: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/COL05/705100319/1009/col05&nclick_check=1

            “Regardless, if the evidence against Planned Parenthood is so solid, why are they still in business?”

            They stay in business because they have plenty of friends in the Democratic Party (along with a few Republicans–Gary Johnson and Tom Ridge come to mind), as well as in the media and the academic world. These folks establish a narrative about Planned Parenthood (and abortion in general), and that narrative doesn’t include abusers, pimps, or selfish men who want to use women and abort the consequences. My previous article covers that topic: http://liveactionnews.org/stripping-away-illusions-the-truth-about-abortion-enablers/

            “If women should not have abortions because sometimes men pressure women
            into abortions the women do not want, why not conclude women should not
            work, because sometimes male co-workers or superiors pressure women to
            have sex the women do not want?”

            The difference is that working isn’t inherently wrong. Women (and men) do it because it allows them to maintain a certain standard of living and (if they’re lucky) find a meaningful career. While it’s true that there are dangers posed by predators in the work place, these dangers can be mitigated through the threat of criminal and civil penalties.

            In contrast, abortion is inherently damaging. The most obvious victim is the aborted child, but by it’s very nature, it’s useful for those who want to cover-up and erase the consequences of abuse and mistreatment. Nils Parker summed up this attitude best when he said, “Any procedure that can erase a massive lapse in judgment while at the same time saving hundreds of thousands of dollars and no fewer than 18 years of responsibility for the welfare of another human being, and can be performed with what amounts to a Black & Decker wet/dry vac from your local Home Depot–that’s a procedure from which I can derive countless hours of entertainment.” That’s what abortion reduces women to: disposable entertainment.

            http://books.google.com/books?id=TF-wJkGqg4YC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=tucker+max+assholes+finish+first+baby+killer&source=bl&ots=P7rs1-W2P0&sig=wj2HGfi2P5Qs63pXq9j3IN6tT8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wz2gUsWYKYbyyAGU4YG4Cw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=tucker%20max%20assholes%20finish%20first%20baby%20killer&f=false

          • Adam Peters

            I realize that you think our concern for women is phony, but the truth is that we want to see abuse and oppression stop as much as you do. The difference is that when it comes to abortion, we recognize the role that it plays.

          • Adam Peters

            “Too bad your theory that abortion is murder depends on the assumption that a fertilized egg is a human child with the right to life, but an unfertilized egg is not..”

            I apologize if I was a little too glib the last time that I addressed this issue (especially considering that I wrote an article about changing the tone of the debate), but I do get impatient about it. Left on their own, sperm and eggs will never be anything but… sperm and eggs. On the other, the “product of conception” (to borrow a term that you used earlier) is a new life that carries all of the genetic information required to begin the process of development.

          • DianaG2

            afterwards

          • Adam Peters

            “Spare me your phony concern for the use and abuse of women by predatory men.”

            Sure, I’ll spare you, but we’re not going to stop being concerned for those women who are targeted by predatory men.

            “That has been going on since the dawn of patriarchy, and has nothing to do with legal abortion.”

            Abortion makes it a lot easier to get away with.

            “Do you imagine that the life of a woman is better if she has the baby of a man who used her?”
            If man knew that he would have to support all of his children then he might be a little less frequent in lining up women for use and abuse.

          • Adam Peters

            “But that is not what bothers you; you oppose abortion at any stage, regardless of the procedure used.”
            That’s true, but I also recognize that inflicting a painful, torturous death is an ever more egregious moral violation than inflicting a non-painful one. Our legal system recognizes this fact too–that’s why we take aggravating factors of crimes into account and punish them more harshly.

          • Adam Peters

            “That is because the bill refers to the result of conception as a child…”
            Uh-huh. Weren’t you “the result of conception?” Pretty sure I was… If we’re are the same result of conception, then shouldn’t we all enjoy the same legal protection, too?

          • Aletha

            Why is a fertilized egg a child, but not an egg, or sperm, for that matter? Are eggs and sperm not alive, or not human, before conception? Why do they not have a right to life? Because an egg or sperm lacks the complement of chromosomes brought by the other gamete? Is that what you call logic, that the sperm brings the spark of life to the egg, and then the single cell resulting from that union is a human child with the same right to life as any other human being? So no matter how it happened, once the egg is fertilized, whatever the woman feels about it is irrelevant?

          • DianaG2

            23 pairs of chromosomes = Home Sapiens (a species, by the way)

            Therefore, human.

          • MarcusFenix

            “You noted that these are quite a small percentage, yet I see here
            abortion described as this gruesome, violent procedure, which does not
            at all resemble the vast majority of abortions.”

            I noted that rape/incest/medical necessity were small percentages, not the time frame, but I see your point. The fact that later term abortions are in a minority of occurance doesn’t change the grotestque nature or inherent violence of the procedure upon the recipient. Please don’t confuse the issue there.

            “Abortion is never a casual decision.”

            So, you don’t believe that 98-99% of abortions are done outside of legitimate medical/health reasons, or…are you saying that reasons of convenience, such as “I don’t want to make changes to my social calendar” are invalid. Those are the reasons stated…social, or even economic, but not actual medical necessity. It seems we have different definitions of what casual might entail in this case.

            “That you do not approve of the reason is does not make it your business
            to intervene, or make the woman or her doctor a criminal.”

            Assuming a premise. Abortion, as it stands in this country and within restriction, is legal. I don’t consider a doctor criminal for operating within the law, even if I disagree with that fact. Conversely, we intervene regularly with people, despite their decisions or the lack of illegal activity involved, such as people who attempt suicide.

            “Women are not property or subject to your ideas of morality.”

            Never said they were. That’s projection on your part to assume that is how I think. We all, regardless, are subject to some sort of morality, whether we like it or not, in some form or another. Some is simply more subjective (or argumentative) by its nature, such as this.

            My autocorrect dropped in misanthropist, but yes…misandrist. It puts “Dristen” as the alternative when I type that for some reason. *shrug*

            “BTW, just because women may subscribe to male theories does not mean
            they did not spring from doctrines created by males to oppress women.”

            So, you’re saying women are fine as being enslaved, even though it’s their own cause and folks like me agree with them? Seems slightly backwards to me.

            Also, I’m curious as to what you mean by “male theories”, as opposed to actions or theories by humans in general. Please clarify.

            “Do you think human relations or the world is in fine shape, or that male theories have not made a colossal mess of the world?”

            I think -people- have made the world what it is, and shape it going forward, and where one person sees a mess, others don’t. Where you see a problem, others don’t, or see opportunity. It’s foolish to think that somehow, men are just bystanders in the process, but at the same time it’s similarly foolish to believe that they did this all on their own. I blame people for problems…I don’t base it on their gender, their color, sexual orientation, height, weight, shoe size or anything else.

          • Aletha

            “My autocorrect dropped in misanthropist, but yes…misandrist.”

            Your insinuations are nonsensical. I am a heterosexual woman. Thinking of things in black and white terms will usually lead one astray.

            Do you deny men are running the world? Certainly they get some help from their female tokens, but men in power made the rules according to their theories, and everyone else has little choice but to go along to get along, or revolt. Some, like myself, do both. I do not see the point of blaming anyone for anything, since we are all entrapped by this sick patriarchal culture; I prefer to revolt.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Your insinuations are nonsensical. I am a heterosexual woman. Thinking
            of things in black and white terms will usually lead one astray.”

            Your replies and statements haven’t been other than black and white…or more to the point, single minded. You literally blame men for everything. Why tell me that thinking in black and white leads one astray, when you so very clearly follow such thinking yourself. You didn’t even address anything else I said, but you’re going this route instead.

            So, women are tokens? You believe that women have no real power. or that they’re just puppets of evil, mustache-twirling men who pull their strings from afar? You likewise refuse to put blame where it’s due…on humanity as a whole, for the problems of an entire world…and instead point the finger at men instead?

            I did ask for you to outline these “theories”, but that wasn’t done either.

            Asking if I deny that men run the world is like asking the fallacious question of “Do you still beat your wife?” The answer you get from me is simply a stepping stone for you to make another point about how evil, evil men are running everything and somehow justify or bolster this “revolt” you’re involved in…that you’ve still not outlined.

            I hate to break it to you, but this isn’t the 1600’s anymore, and women aren’t property or somehow less human than their male counterparts.

          • Aletha

            Uh huh. This is a post-patriarchal, post-feminist world, where women have at least equal rights and power, so there is no need for a feminist movement, much less a feminist revolution, and everyone is equally responsible for the problems of the world. How convenient and condescending for a man to think so. Sexism is ancient history, so why be concerned about it any more? Dream on. It is amazing to me, yet too drearily familiar to be surprising, that anyone would proclaim such wishful thinking (I am being generous; more accurately it should be called men’s rights propaganda). I shall not waste any more of my time here, but if anyone wants to know anything more about what I think, or debate with me further, (I will not hold my breath), just google Aletha feminist revolution.

          • MarcusFenix

            ” and everyone is equally responsible for the problems of the world.

            Do you not believe that people in general are responsible for their problems? Or do you believe that I am responsible for yours for some reason, or than all men are responsible for all women’s problems, etc. This is why i asked for clarification. You’re making incredibly broad statements, with no real indicator as to a conclusion.

            “I shall not waste any more of my time here…”

            The time wasted was in not actually explaining your position or actually enumerating anything as asked. There hasn’t been a debate at all so far, since you couldn’t even perform something as simple as actually stating a clear position. If you believe that actually stating your beliefs or position is a waste of time…then looking you up on Google would be an even bigger waste of mine, since your postings here are likely the same thing I’d find there.

            “This is a post-patriarchal, post-feminist world, where women have at least equal rights and power,”

            If you’re including the entire world…well, that’s unrealistic. If you’re saying that about here in the US, then…that’s a different matter. But feminism now, as opposed to the days of fighting for women’s suffrage, is quite a different animal. It’s incorrect to equate those things.

            ” How convenient and condescending for a man to think so.”

            You’ve given me nothing to consider otherwise. I’m not being condescending. I’m asking you too explain and define. The condescension is all from your end.

            “I am being generous; more accurately it should be called men’s rights propaganda”

            Again….example? Could you cite even just a single item? Given that you’re putting out there that there is a world full of it, just one would be a good start.

            “but if anyone wants to know anything more about what I think, or debate
            with me further, (I will not hold my breath), just google Aletha
            feminist revolution.”

            You’ve never actually debated anyone before, have you? The person making the claim is responsible for backing it up with proof, evidence, intellectually sound arguments and so on. It’s not OUR job to look up YOUR argument to debate YOU on. If I want to know your position, then I would ask. I did ask. All I received in return is a bunch of strange feminist banter and no real point to be made.

            I’m just asking for your honest, non-condescending view on the matter, with some detail. I’m not asking for a full dissertation on the abstract political ramifications of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs policy when compared to the events of “War and Peace”. I’m asking you to detail your own position, and nothing more.

            I’ll even lead off, since this site is pro life. You’ve made claims (directly and indirectly) that abortion is just another way for men to oppress women. But it’s an issue which directly affects women, spearheaded by women, and garners support from more women than men. If the majority of men support abortion over pro life policies, and your claim is that men use such issues to oppress women…then would that not mean that pro-choice registers under the label of being oppressive, and thus your support of it validates these claims of oppression? This would be a case where the pro life position would be women supporting a cause, of which you say you’re against. That’s a good starting point, I believe.

          • Aletha

            How appropriate. I thought I would leave a final parting shot, but it disappeared.

            The time wasted was in trying to elucidate my position for deaf ears, or should I say, there is none so blind as those who refuse to see? I did not come here to teach Feminism 101, or have my words twisted like pretzels. Nor did I come here to debate on your terms.

            As a final parting shot, to say that an abortion done for reasons you do not recognize as valid must be a casual or arbitrary decision is condescending beyond belief. Since when is any man qualified to judge that? You cannot imagine what pregnancy or childbirth is like. They are not merely inconvenient! Hello! And Goodbye!

            Now, will this comment disappear as well?

          • Adam Peters

            No, the comment came through :) I’m sorry you feel discouraged, but I’d love for you to come back if you ever want to.

          • Basset_Hound

            Hmm….so women never have abortions for “trivial” reasons? Consider this excerpt from an editorial piece written in the Washington Post 20 years ago from (now) Advice to the Lovelorn columnist Carolyn Hax. “For many women abortion represents a moral and ethical dilemma, but for …upper middle class ambitious ones, it does not. For many women, the regrets and the wishful
            what ifs they indulge in after an abortion are slightly below “what if I had chunked economics and majored in art”…they see abortion as a “means to a lifestyle that would allow them to view sex as a pleasure…a lifestyle that allowed room for irresponsibility” This article was entitled “No Birth No Pangs” and ran in March of 1993. It’s still available (albeit behind a pay wall) at WaPo’s web site. I’ve read the entire article and it is NOTHING but a justification for “convenience” abortion.

          • MarcusFenix

            “The time wasted was in trying to elucidate my position for deaf ears, or
            should I say, there is none so blind as those who refuse to see?”

            Because. You. Haven’t. Detailed. Your. Position. I don’t really know how to say that any other way.

            ” I did not come here to teach Feminism 101, or have my words twisted
            like pretzels. Nor did I come here to debate on your terms.”

            You’ve not given us anything by which to conduct instruction, such as details or actual facts. Further, I can’t “twist” words you’ve never said. Asking you to actual detail your position isn’t twisting anything…it’s asking you to actually present a cogent argument. Classical, logical debate isn’t on *my* terms either. Asking you to provide proof of your argument isn’t *my* terms…it’s you defining *yours*. It’s how debate has always been done.

            Debate functions in the following manner.

            1. You present a premise or belief.
            2. You present facts, statistics, supporting evidence, and other information which backs your premise.
            3. You sum up these items into a logical conclusion.

            You did #1. You completely skipped #2 and used #1 as #3. That’s called circular reasoning, where your premise and conclusion are the same thing, which is a logical fallacy. I didn’t make up the rules of debate or fallacies…but I find myself bound to follow them.

            If you actually have an argument to make, please…feel free to make it. It’s not like it hasn’t been requested multiple times.

            “As a final parting shot, to say that an abortion done for reasons you do not recognize as valid…”

            Validity isn’t the case, nor did I argue them as invalid. Disagreeable to me personally, but I didn’t change their validity in any way. What you’re saying is that, because I disagree with you, I must therefore be condescending in the process? I would ask you to go back and re-read that…unless you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is likewise condescending. That shines a light on a problem far larger than debating terms. But read on.

            “You cannot imagine what pregnancy or childbirth is like. They are not merely inconvenient!”

            You’re right. I’ll personally never experience, first hand, child birth. As a man, I’m still allowed opinions on things that I’ll never personally experience. I’ll never stab myself in the stomach with a Bowie knife, but I don’t need to experience that to know it’s painful and would completely suck. We make decisions and judgments, regularly and every day, based on things we may never actually experience ourselves. That doesn’t somehow remove my intellectual ability to judge a situation for what it is. I believe thinking that way is the essence of condescending, since you think me too ignorant to make such a judgment because of my gender. Since when am I not allowed to make judgments about the world around me? Because -you- say so? Because I have a penis? Outside of your broken and intellectually dismissable idea that because I can’t experience something I can’t judge it for myself…give me a good reason why you believe my opinion is of no worth, with logical points to back it up.

            You can’t. There isn’t one.

            Further to the point, I’m not arguing validity. That is a twist of words on your part, and not something I’ve said at all. I believe the reasons are weak, but I can’t dismiss them entirely as invalid when people use them *as* reasons. But more to the point, if pregnancy is not so much of an inconveneince, and is something so terribly important and requires such heavy thought…then why are 98-99% of the reasons that abortions are performed are for casual and non-life threatening medical reasons? Are you saying that a woman who has an abortion that lists “didn’t want people to know I’m pregnant”, which is 25%+ of the time…are somehow equating their personal shame or lack of propriety in their lives with a doctor telling her that “if you have this baby, it will kill you.” How about “I can’t afford a child”, which is a financial situation and possibly incredibly temporary. Or the ever popular “I don’t want it to interfere with my career”, which is a non-issue granted that the laws in place, and society at large, support mothers taking 12 weeks from work for newborns (and fathers too, for that matter), not to mention the major items that revolve around such times, like businesses offering in-house day care and so on.

            Those things aren’t even in the same galaxy, yet you pretend they are for some reason…of course, you haven’t said -why-, because again….you haven’t actually enumerated anything for your premise. You’re making arguments you can’t support logically, and then run off when challenged.

            I’d like to say that we’ve had a good discussion, but the bottom line is that we haven’t. You’ve dropped a bunch of “men are evil!!!” items, refused to support that with anything even relatively close to an argument, and then decide arbitrarily that we’re obtuse, condescending, and would twist your words around with no proof as that being the case, or that it would be should you pose an actual argument.

            That’s not condescending for me to say that. It’s just the truth.

            If you want an actual discussion, based on facts and anything other than baseless conjecture or misandrist ideology, we’ll be here. To help you out, there are all kinds of debates. You can use this as a link to get started:

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

          • Aletha

            Should I laugh, or yawn? Typical MRA logic. As if I have not heard all this ad nauseum before… Dream on, Mr. Know It All. I do not see any point in arguing in circles with one who does not have the ability to see his own circular reasoning, but thinks he is so rigorously logical. BTW, I do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source, especially with regards to feminist issues. And since when do moral matters have anything to do with facts, statistics, evidence, or proof? Do you know the meaning of the term, subjective? Do you recognize my right to determine what I want to do with my own body? Rights are also not in the realm of facts, statistics, evidence, or proof. They are matters of personal autonomy. How would one prove one has a right to freedom of speech, or religion? Have you heard of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems? Or do you labor under the fallacy that everything that is true can be proven? Hint, Godel proved, logically, that cannot be the case.

          • MarcusFenix

            You should just try to stay on topic and answer questions you’ve been asked. Clearly, you’re just not up to that task.

            Yes, heard it all before, because I’ve asked you 3 times at least to actually outline your argument.

            All of that garbage above was from asking you to actually make a point, and to outline what “male theories” were that you spoke of previously. Are you capitulating to me, in that you can’t do even that?

            What is MRA logic? That’s a new term. See…you’re not even defining the terms you’re using, as if we should all know exactly what you’re talking about.

            Circular logic…like yours where you blame men for everything, because me did it all or some such nonsense? Please explain where my logic is circular…or are you just saying it because I said it to you first, yet you have no actual concept of -why- mine is supposed to be that way?

            Apparently English isn’t your forte either. The link to WIki had NOTHING to do with “feminist issues”. The link was to the definition of *debate* and the types of debate therein. You didn’t even bother to look at what was given to you. I used wiki as a simple source for a simple subject that you apparently don’t grasp. Here, have some other sources for instruction.

            http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/logarg__.html
            http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/building-logical-arguments.html
            http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
            http://ctl.utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/default/files/Argument.pdf

            “And since when do moral matters have anything to do with facts,
            statistics, evidence, or proof? Do you know the meaning of the term,
            subjective?

            Do you know how silly of a question that is? Morality is the basis of most laws you follow. A simple example. Murder isn’t legal. Theft is not legal. Do you know why? Outside of common items like the speed limit or your taxes, some form of morality is placed on you every day, like it or not. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you, but clearly it’s a male conspiracy, so…maybe it’s needed. Or you can logically explain that away…since you didn’t really explain anything else up to this point.

            Why are you trying to argue logical debate with me…when you can’t even define YOUR OWN debate about the topic at hand? That would be a red herring, unless you’re just purposely obtuse. Do you want to discuss debate theory, or do you actually have a point about all of these “male theories” that you have YET to actually explain in any detail at all.

            If your aim was to make a ridiculous bunch of statements, run away from them, and then try to discuss debate theory (which had a perfectly good link you somehow didn’t notice was to -debate- and then linked it to feminism) instead of the actual topic at hand, then congratulations! You’ve succeeded!

            BTW…Godel’s theorems applied mainly to mathematics…not logical debate but has been used for that purpose. You didn’t even apply that properly. With respect to “proving what’s true”….one could not consider something true *unless* its’ been proven, and could be done outside of its current system using Godel as a model. If it were untrue, or unproven, it couldn’t be listed as true in that sense. It’s a worthless word game and a waste of time, more than anything else.if you’re trying to make some argument otherwise. I could likewise take this:

            ” Do you recognize my right to determine what I want to do with my own body?”

            …and use Godel to show that you may not have those things. Your own argument would be used against you. Clearly, you missed that. You would be using your own systems to try and justify or clarify…you would be making the same mistake you’re saying I’ve made…yet all I’ve asked you for is clarification and definition. Whoops.

            If you -labored- nearly as hard to actually discuss these male theories and the remainder of your baseless garbage as you did in trying to apply math theory to a logical discussion, you might have actually accomplished something.

            Stop wasting your time and either make a point, or don’t. I’ve asked for simple information that you’ve avoided entirely. Either you have no real point to make and just like trying to quote logical debate items you don’t even understand or apply correctly, or…somehow you really don’t have a point In case you need a refresher, lets start again.

            Please define and explain what “male theories” are, and how they apply in the given discussion.

            Otherwise, you lost this debate a long time ago and you’re grasping at straws…very flimsy, unimportant straws. Likely because you were oppressed or some such nonsense.

          • MarcusFenix

            SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO……I wanted to be polite, but after your last posting….and some digging done, I decided it was far past time of being nice, since you clearly will never even actually try to discuss anything calmly. As I tell people…you’ve earned the response at this point.

            After myself and a few others (mostly a few others, because you’re not worth THAT much more time) actually Googled you…guess what we found?

            Now, I want to preface this with your own words:

            BTW, I do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source, especially with regards to feminist issues.

            So, you don’t trust Wikipedia, especially on feminist issues….does that count only count when you’re not the author of the page? Or is it only when a man uses wiki to try and link something simple and you just disagree? Because, here you are, in all your glory, as a contributor to (GASP!!!!) Women’s Issues on Wiki….among multiple other items!

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aletha_freesoil

            There you are. That link can be found in multiple spots, such as from freesoil, etc…..that links right back to you.

            So, let’s recap.

            1. You have no real argument and can barely get past stating your premise.

            2. You can’t answer a single simple question to define a single term you’ve used (“male theories”)

            3. You purposely evade any actual questions, and immediately go to subjective materials, off the wall comments with no actual basis in the discussion, cite debate theory that you can neither follow nor even apply properly, and claim that i’m apparently a MRA, because I disagree with you. Very classy. Now, if I were a MRA, I’d ask you to make me a sandwich. I don’t need you to make one, I can do it myself, thanks.

            4. You purposely go out of your way to state how something is incredibly biased (Wikipedia)….yet YOU are an editor there, linking your feminist page directly to it, and yet….you don’t trust the VERY THING YOU WRITE FOR YOURSELF. Amazing level of hypocrisy there.

            Now, please…I want you to completely deny that the wiki editor/poster page is you….so we can then display every link you’ve put on the website you gave us to go find you at, as leading directly back to that wiki editor/contributor page. Please. Just one time. Say it’s not you. I dare you.

            Then there is THIS gem:

            http://cheryllindseyseelhoffforpresident.wordpress.com/

            I wouldn’t elect you President of the local elementary school Science Fair Judging Committee, much less to something in a -public- office. Get over yourself. It’s not your gender, maam. It’s the level of pure vapidness and naivety you display. That can be done with any gender. You just happen to have it out for public view.

            So yes, please. Pretty pretty please with cherries on top continue this line of discussion, since your level of credibility was already fairly low, but now….it’s in the negative. Please say how you don’t trust sources that YOU also write for and contribute to directly, especially when it was for a page about debate. Wasn’t even a woman’s issue.

            You’re a joke. Please, just leave now…you never really had a chance at winning a debate, and now….it’s WELL past the point of no return, Mrs Don’t Know It All.

            Madam Hypocrisy, exit stage left, please. Kthxbai.

          • Aletha

            Wow, Marcus, you are funny! Are you and your buddies always so careless with your research? What page did I give you to look at? I gave you a phrase to find me through Google! What editor/contributor page? That Wikipedia page is my User page, except that actually I allowed my friend and colleague Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff to borrow it, since Wikipedia kicked her out! I am not only not an editor there, I never had anything of my own posted there at all, and aside from that one page, neither does Ms. Seelhoff. There was a history of her deleted page, but I cannot even find that now. Perhaps your buddies had better luck? Probably Wikipedia did not want to keep it around, since the discussion might have been embarrassing for them. Not to mention, my page has not been modified in five years, and I have no links to it at all. Wikipedia is highly rated on Google, so the page shows up there, that is all there is to that…. I have no desire or intention to run for office, or even to have my real identity known, but why would you imagine I, or my friend Ms. Seelhoff, would want your support? That is hilarious! BTW, you are not the first to get us mixed up. Our ideas are similar, though our life experiences are not, and we have our disagreements. For instance, she is much more generous toward the President than I am.

            Somehow I doubt you have any clue about the implications of the Godel incompleteness theorems, but you are right in that they are usually applied to mathematics. My point was that not everything that is true can be proven, even in mathematics, but particularly regarding human feelings and relations. That that fact could be used against my argument is supposed to be news to me? Logic is always a double-edged sword. If you want a simple example of an unprovable truth, I love my cats. How on earth would I prove that? Yet somehow I doubt even you would doubt it is true, though you probably doubt I love my significant other!

            Why would you presume I did not notice the Wikipedia link you gave me was not about feminism? Jump to conclusions much? It appears you figured out what MRA stood for. I did previously refer to men’s rights propaganda, so I did not think it would be so difficult for anyone to recognize that abbreviation. Not every MRA is so silly as to dismiss a woman by asking her to make him a sandwich; some take themselves more seriously than that. You need an example of male theories? Look around; they permeate everything. For one uncommon example, how about Obama saying that it was just common sense that underage women should not be able to get emergency contraception over the counter? That is male common sense for you. Yes, women often espouse male common sense, but it originated from men. How about mutually assured destruction as a justification for the nuclear arms race? More male common sense for you. The blind faith in technology that has allowed the development of such weapons, nuclear power, genetic engineering, poisoning crops to kill insects, on and on ad nauseum, these are more examples of male common sense. It used to be male common sense that a married couple was one person, the man, since the woman was his property. Legally that is now obsolete, but some men still think that way, yes, even in America, and it still has been less than a century since women got the right to vote, much less since the Supreme Court recognized any applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to the rights of women. Man is destined to rule over nature, or so he thinks. That arrogance will apparently require many more rude awakenings than Fukushima before it runs its course.

            Morality is subjective. The definition of life, which your whole argument depends on, is subjective. You have no evidence, facts, statistics, or proof to bolster your argument that abortion is murder, but it does follow from your definition of when life begins. That is one reason I called you on circular reasoning. That would make any contraceptive device that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg also an instrument of murder. Most scientists would not agree that life begins at conception; they are more likely to define that moment as when a fetus becomes viable, able to survive outside the womb. Mr. Peters said, “Left on their own, sperm and eggs will never be anything but… sperm and eggs.” Yes, and before viability, a fetus left on its own would expire within seconds. NIH estimates that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm. Why are you people so worked up about the relatively few number of pregnancies that end in non-spontaneous abortion? Perhaps you should be more upset about that rate of miscarriage, which is probably a good deal higher than it should be due to the decreasing quality of sperm, thanks to the ever increasing toxic burden created by industry. Evidently while a fertilized egg has the genetic information necessary for development, that information is often too compromised for the fetus to develop into a living child.

            Now that you have so ably demonstrated your utter ignorance of and contempt for feminism, and your incredibly sloppy attempt at demonstrating my hypocrisy and lack of logical and language skills, I think I will rest my case. Now do you understand why Meghan Murphy would not give you the time of day, Adam Peters?

          • PrincessJasmine4

            It used to be male common sense that a married couple was one person, the man, since the woman was his property. Legally that is now obsolete, but some men still think that way, yes, even in America

            Apparently it’s feminist “common sense”, currently, that the child and the mother are one and that the child in utero is somehow the woman’s property to be disposed of when she feels the need.

            For all your “fight for equality” you people have no qualms about turning around and treating someone else (someone who cannot defend his/herself) in the same exact manner as men once treated women.
            Unfortunately this practice is not yet legally obsolete, even in America.

            Sounds like “feminist common sense” is just as if not more brutal than “male common sense”.

            Why are you people so worked up about the relatively few number of pregnancies that end in non-spontaneous abortion? Perhaps you should be more upset about that rate of miscarriage, which is probably a good deal higher than it should be due to the decreasing quality of sperm, thanks to the ever increasing toxic burden created by industry.

            Why is it so difficult for you pro aborts to recognize the difference between a natural death (miscarriage) and aggressively ending the life of another.

            It takes a special kind of “feminist logic” to imply that all natural death should be eliminated before trying to abolish abortion.

          • MarcusFenix

            Denial, right on cue. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

            ” I gave you a phrase to find me through Google!”

            You did. What came back was “your friend Cheryl”…on your user page…that you let “her borrow”. You conveniently forgot to mention that “oh, if you search for me like I ask you to…you’re going to find me, but it’s not me, but really my bat-guano crazy friend who got booted off Wiki, who also wanted to run for office but no one’s ever really heard of her or her party….just a heads up.” We didn’t get all of that previously, but you’d think you might have wanted to mention that…it’s not something really minor, ya know?

            I hope you realize that “oh, it’s my friend, it’s not me” is akin to “oh, someone else hacked my page, teehee”….and is completely unbelievable. Do you ask for personal advice, you know…”for your friend” too, since we know what that really is all about. Absolutely sad, and utterly predictable. Let’s just stop pretending that it’s not you, because if you are to have us believe that isn’t you…after you sent us looking for it, no less….then I also have some lovely ocean front property in Kansas I’ve been looking to sell.

            Of course we couldn’t find a -deleted- page…but we did find an active page. The one that pointed to you, from your own links….which magically and somehow isn’t you………yeah. Those links, and the search terms, can be found in this thread in a few places. You put them in the posts, afterall…..right?

            ” i have no desire or intention to run for office, or even to have my real
            identity known, but why would you imagine I, or my friend Ms. Seelhoff,
            would want your support? ”

            Because that’s what people who want to run for office need. Support. Votes. Or is it because I have testicles that my support wouldn’t be welcome…of course, that would require that you and your alter ego weren’t certifiably insane or that the items on her “Presidential Bid” page weren’t completely cracked (not to mention contradictory).

            “BTW, you are not the first to get us mixed up…”

            So, this has happened before but you neglected to mention the discrepancy? Or, another way of looking at it is that this isn’t the first time you’ve had to…readjust the narrative…to cover for it. Oooook.

            If it’s not you, and it’s someone else…why tell us to go look YOU up online, knowing that was going to be what came back. Let’s face it. You got busted and now you’re running as fast as you can away.

            Occam’s Razor, right here hard at work.

            Let’s continue with more of your nonsense, also hard at work.

            “Somehow I doubt you have any clue about the implications of the Godel
            incompleteness theorems, but you are right in that they are usually
            applied to mathematics.”

            So…i don’t have a clue…except that I know it’s correctly applied in mathematics, etc….so which is it? Am I clueless, or do I know? Maybe your friend Cheryl can come in and take over at the keys, and clue me in?

            “That that fact could be used against my argument is supposed to be news to me?”

            It shouldn’t be, given the very things you stress to be true, such as bodily autonomy and the other drivel, would be subject to the same interpretation. Unless it’s really someone else that it applies to and not just you. *facedesk*

            “Why would you presume I did not notice the Wikipedia link you gave me was not about feminism?”

            Likely because you dismissed it out of hand, not trusting it for “feminist issues”…when it was a link to how logical debates work, which has zero bearing on the gender of the person making the argument. The fact you didn’t bother to even look was immediately obvious by your comment, and made even more ridiculous that you (yes, you) are someone who has written feminist items for pages there. You didn’t look and posted right back as if it were something distasteful. Had you looked, you would have responded with something that sounds like “Yes, I’m familiar with the debate process”. That didn’t happen, and it’s fairly obvious as to why.

            “If you want a simple example of an unprovable truth, I love my cats. How on earth would I prove that? ”

            If love, like morals, can be labeled as subjective…that’s another matter too, but..let’s keep it simple for you and Cheryl. If you love your cat, your actions will show it in their entirety. You wouldn’t abuse your cat, or fail to feed it. You would pet it, and it would reciprocate by purring, wanting to be around you, etc. There are empirical, scientific and common sense markers to indicate love and affection between a pet and their owner. Or Cheryl and your pet. You get the idea. What a silly argument! :)

            “Yes, women often espouse male common sense, but it originated from men.”

            Somehow, I think the women here, if you were to tell them this to their face, would likely laugh and dismiss you there. How did women’s rights come about? Did we manfolk just say “Cheery-oh, ladies…scamper off with you now and get you some rights!” Hardly. I stated clearly before about how abortion was an issue spearheaded by women, championed by a much larger pool of women then men, and deals directly with women’s health. You also completely evaded the question I posed with regards to the idea that if men were driving things and more men support abortion than women….would that not be the “male theory”….which is something you clearly support? It would put you on the wrong side of the issue, based on that fact alone, from your own stated perspective.

            “For one uncommon example…”

            Yet you claim it “permeates everything”. Why do you need uncommon examples to explain something found -everywhere-. Slip of the tongue, Freudian slip, or just bad facts on your part? I’ll let you decide.

            “For one uncommon example, how about Obama saying that it was just common sense that underage women should not be able to get emergency
            contraception over the counter?”

            I thought he believed otherwise, but…regardless of who says it…notice the underlying concept. *Underage* girls. Not 18+. Parents are responsible for their children. We have age limits on specific items in our culture for a reason…*because* children are beholden to their guardians and parents. As a mother of anywhere between 4 and 11 kids, you’d know that. An easy answer for an easy example.

            ” The blind faith in technology that has allowed the development of such
            weapons, nuclear power, genetic engineering, poisoning crops to kill
            insects, on and on ad nauseum….”

            Just as an aside…that’s almost word for word from your friend Cheryl. Amazing how you sound and type just like she does!!! Moving on…

            ” How about mutually assured destruction as a justification for the nuclear arms race?”

            So, women would just have tea and crumpets, and talk it all away? Seems more like human justification for those things, more than just evil, evil men.

            “. It used to be male common sense that a married couple was one person, the man, since the woman was his property”

            Sure…during the Dark Ages. Middle Ages, to a degree. I’m sorry to inform you that we’re not on the Arabian style calendar which still lists the year as the early 1400’s. You’ll find modern times much more refreshing in many respects. How you believe men *still* see the world (as an entire gender) is incredibly skewed and inaccurate.

            “That arrogance will apparently require many more rude awakenings than Fukushima before it runs its course.”

            Because men believe we can change weather patterns and create, steer, and use typhoons/hurricanes/cyclones at our beckon call. Of course, why didn’t I see that before?

            The rest wasn’t really worth much…just more drivel.

            “Morality is subjective.”

            This is true in philosophy, but not so much when the law is concerned. The only difference in objectivity on the subject is the act, such as the difference between first and second degree. But pure murder, without any addendum, is objective. Please tell me how the illegal acts of theft, murder, or rape are subjective? I’ll wait.

            “The definition of life, which your whole argument depends on, is subjective. ”

            I never tried to start that discussion with you, but if you’re trying to mix my discussion with Adam, then that’s fine. But that wasn’t what *our* discussion was about. On the other hand, here’s the very objective definition of life, per Webster. Pretty clear cut and dry. Biology is the study of life. Lots of objective facts and stats involved there too. It’s not as subjective as you believe. The link isn’t Wiki, so…you should be ok.

            “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

            “You have no evidence, facts, statistics, or proof to bolster your argument that abortion is murder…”

            Likely because *I* *never* *claimed* *it* *was* to start with in the discussion. The least you could do is attribute things to me that I did say. I don’t believe anything below the fetal viability mark is “murder”…morally, I find it repugnant, but it doesn’t fit the legal definition of murder. Try again.

            ” That is one reason I called you on circular reasoning. That would make
            any contraceptive device that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg
            also an instrument of murder. ”

            Which is why I called BS on your conclusion. You’re stating that I made a logical misstep….on something I never said, eluded to, or even on which I find myself in agreement. It’s hard to have circular reasoning…except when you’re shoving words into my mouth and making assumptions. That’s why your circular reasoning assessment was faulty. Mine, on the other hand to you, was never refuted.

            ” Most scientists would not agree that life begins at conception…”

            Except every Biology book on the planet. Do you somehow believe that something dead suddenly springs to life?

            “Why are you people so worked up about the relatively few number of pregnancies that end in non-spontaneous abortion?”

            If you’re talking about abortion such as in a clinic, Roe v. Wade abortion issues….we must have a differing number of “few”. A difference of 55 million, give or take a handful. That’s not a “few” abortions, no more than 55 million dollars is a “few” dollars to you or I. Sorry, you don’t get any points there either.

            “Perhaps you should be more upset about that rate of miscarriage, which
            is probably a good deal higher than it should be due to the decreasing
            quality of sperm, thanks to the ever increasing toxic burden created by
            industry. ”

            Sure, we can address that, but it really wasn’t part of the discussion. That would be something outside of this one, about the food industry and so on. It’s less important and pushing a red herring…almost.

            “Now that you have so ably demonstrated your utter ignorance of and contempt for feminism…”

            My contempt and ire was directed at you…not at women at large, issues of equality, or anything else past just pointing a really large finger at someone who deserved it. The only person who has peddled ignorance here is you, maam.

            “… and your incredibly sloppy attempt at demonstrating my hypocrisy and lack of logical and language skills”

            You mean, as I did above multiple times that you still have no answer for…or can we blame in on “Cheryl”, so it’s not really you…..pfft, no.

            You failed completely on the logical angle.
            You failed to even state an argument until now…days after the fact.
            You failed to distract us from your agenda by blaming what -you- claim was -your- information on someone else. It’s ridiculous on its face.

            The only failure here, maam, has been yours. I’ve directly refuted your statements. Your answers don’t actually act as a rebuttal. So yes, please rest your case. My next post is literally going to be everything from your….errrr….Cheryl’s….webpage about such nonsense as the “gift economy” (which would result in mass chaos and that no one takes seriously), or maybe Cheryl’s…errr….your support for an Equal Rights Act, which states that everyone should be considered equal regardless of gender. Except men, who should pay 100 dollars a year in the form of a tax for simply being male. Which is, of course, unconstitutional AND illegal. That’s not even subjective on my part.

            “Now do you understand why Meghan Murphy would not give you the time of day, Adam Peters?”

            Because if they argue anything like some of what we get here regularly, they’d suffer embarrassing losses over and over and over and over and over. Also, because they (like many progressive/liberal folks) only want to hear what sounds like themselves. They have no place for dissension or disagreement. Check out the Article V Convention write ups in Daily Kos if you would like an easy example of that. Or Meghan’s stuff.

            I’d love to see Meghan come here and debate me, or anyone else, one on one. I welcome that challenge anytime.

            We’re done for now. :)

          • PrincessJasmine4

            Yikes!
            Sounds like Cheryl, err.. Aletha has found a personality that she doesn’t seem to know about yet.
            I mean, maybe she really doesn’t believe it’s her.

            ah well… I’m going to go watch Sybil now.

          • Aletha

            Both Ms. Seelhoff and I have a long history of posting in feminist venues on the Internet. Those who know of us have no trouble telling us apart. That you cannot tell us apart speaks volumes about you, not my “hypocrisy” or “denial.” The others who got us mixed up likewise knew nothing about feminism, except that they did not like it. As I said, I did not come here to have my words, or my identity, twisted like pretzels.

            You are foolish to insist that you have busted me, but whatever. She does have a bunch of children. I have none. She lives in Washington. I live in California. We have never met in person, probably never will. I am a co-founder of the modern Free Soil Party, in 1977; she volunteered to run for President, thirty years later. Alter ego? Find me one thing either of us has posted on Wikipedia. Just one, besides that user page. Or are you so unwilling to concede you made a mistake, you would rather insist on peddling a story you cannot back up? I did find a reference to her deleted page, on a discussion page.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_Soil_Party

            “I know this sounds like a joke, but it seems to be serious: notorious radical feminist Cheryl Lyndsey Seelhoff, a.k.a. “Heart”, announced her candidacy for President of the United States, running on the Free Soil
            Party ticket.[1] I suppose this is worth mention in this article. — Stormwatch 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

            Seelhoff was previously the subject of a biographical article on Wikipedia, which was deleted due to lack of reliable sources documenting notability. The modern “Free Soil Party” appears to consist of a blog only, and to not have any significant real-life presence.–Pharos 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)”

            Of course, it was not deemed worth mentioning in the article. The blog Pharos mentioned is mine, though hers was actually much more popular and got far more comments, before she abandoned blogging. I say of course because this is Wikipedia, after all, which is notorious for its gender imbalance and hostility to feminism. In fact, some feminists think they should try to rectify that by trying to become editors there, but personally, I think that would be hopeless. Here is one recent article, written by a man, about that prospect. http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/storm-wikipedia-women-gender-imbalance-academics/

            You can believe whatever you like; it does not make it true. Would you agree that most people on this site do believe abortion is murder? Are you splitting hairs, or just prefer to concede the law currently does not support that? You and I define proof differently. I think you use the word loosely, but that is perhaps more common than the way I use it. I prefer to use the word in its strictest sense, because it is so easy to misinterpret and manipulate evidence and statistics.

            You are amusing, Marcus, but I find myself getting bored with your silly lies, evasions, hairsplitting, and distortions.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Both Ms. Seelhoff and I have a long history of posting in feminist venues on the Internet. Those who know of us have no trouble telling us apart. That you cannot tell us apart speaks volumes about you, not my
            “hypocrisy” or “denial.”

            You do realize that you are posting on the internet…on a forum…where no one here knows you, right? It’s not like there’s a video camera, or some other means of us identifying you. The fact that you even try to explain away such a massive discrepancy by “well, you SHOULD know we’re different people, just because!” is as absurd as saying you and Cheryl are different people. You also realize that, even in the 0.00001% chance that you’re telling the truth…we haven’t seen Cheryl post anything either. What would we compare you to, in order to make such a stunning discovery? Logical conclusions don’t seem to be something you’re comfortable with, apparently.

            ” The others who got us mixed up likewise knew nothing about feminism, except that they did not like it.”

            I don’t need a Ph.D in Women’s Studies to know that I genuinely think you’re full of it. I have not one single problem with men and women being treated equally under the law, though you and Cheryl apparently do (refresher…the Man Tax, for example?). The fact that you and your alter ego hate men so much, and demonstrated it so readily, is apparently obvious. You can continue to bash me for being male, or because you somehow are under the impression that because I dislike your stance, I clearly don’t understand feminism or what’s being discussed. You can continue to be incorrect across the board, but it doesn’t change much. It doesn’t change the fact that I’ve refuted items and you’ve offered nothing in return for most of it, and the ones you did reply to (to other parts of the thread) are…boring, if not repetitive.

            “As I said, I did not come here to have my words, or my identity, twisted like pretzels. ”

            The words part isn’t where the twisting is coming from on my end. You’re doing that all on your own. As far as the identity, you were the one who said “Go search -Aletha feminism-” and people did. It linked you directly to the wiki contributor page. That directly linked you to Cheryl. If you didn’t want your “identity” twisted, you likely would have mentioned, up front (since you had absolute knowledge people would, and HAVE made that mistake), that there was something that might look off. You didn’t, until *after* it was put out there that you were engaging in a very basic form of sock puppetry. Again, even in the miniscule chance you’re being honest (which lets face it, I don’t believe you are)…the only person who would have twisted around their identity IS you, by allowing someone else to use your name, your online handles, post items under your name…and then never bother to mention that to anyone else. Again, since you’ve mentioned this has happened before, one would think that you, at the very least, would have mentioned a disclaimer.

            You didn’t. There is a short list of logical conclusions as to why.

            1. You’re Cheryl.

            2. You’re incompetent/negligent with regards to who is using your identity.

            3. You forgot to mention a possible issue with your identity, of which you’ve stated has occurred previously and yet you somehow didn’t feel the need to share with anyone else.

            “You are foolish to insist that you have busted me, but whatever.”

            Whatever..that’s the key phrase here. You clearly can never prove that you’re not someone different than Cheryl, you state the same things as she did on her presidential bid website (which, btw….the Free Soil party was pretty much finished and done with back in the mid 1800’s….), every page on the internet where the word Aletha appears, outside of here, tracks back to Cheryl……if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and spouts off almost word for word the same things a duck says…well, you get the idea, I’m sure. Keep denying it all you like, but…just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it true. That’s my line.

            “Just one, besides that user page. Or are you so unwilling to concede you
            made a mistake, you would rather insist on peddling a story you cannot
            back up?”

            Apparently, how the internet works is a challenge for you. You do realize that the user page, in fact, has the activity list and logs of post. It’s in the bottom sections, under the user info. How do you think we went about looking up (you) Cheryl in the first place? It’s all right there. Are you blind, or just purposely trying to be obtuse on the matter? That’s weak tea. You’re free to go look there and see for yourself, but the link contains that information for everyone to see.

            ” I did find a reference to her deleted page, on a discussion page.”

            Correct. But the entry states directly that:
            “Seelhoff was previously the subject of a biographical article on
            Wikipedia, which was deleted due to lack of reliable sources documenting
            notability.”

            The page was deleted for lack of reliable sources and documentation. Not because it was some vast conspiracy, or as you stated two days ago:

            “Probably Wikipedia did not want to keep it around, since the discussion might have been embarrassing for them. ”

            Or..it was because no one could accurately prove the information that she/you posted on her entry, that there was no documentation as required by the community for specific functions of the article, and so on. Your insinuation is that Wiki was embarrassed over something she said or did….but the deletion was based on the fact that, while it’s Wiki and certainly people can write whatever….that the people researching you(cheryl) couldn’t verify or prove items that was there, and that it was deleted for those grounds. Couldn’t prove anything…kind of like what’s been offered by you. Couldn’t verify details about identity, public notoriety, etc…..doesn’t THAT sound familiar, Aletha? Yeah…yeah it does sound awful familiar. I almost get the impression that such things were said…recently…around here somewhere. I might be imagining that though, but i’d have sworn to it. *facedesk*

            “The blog Pharos mentioned is mine, though hers was actually much more
            popular and got far more comments, before she abandoned blogging.”

            Hmmm…so Pharos (and i can see him on the wiki free soil edit page as well) mentions a blog. You say that blog is yours. The blog is written by someone under the name “aletha”…which would be no more difficult to do than it was to type. For example, I could start a “Marcus for President” blog..then write another entry beside it as “Consuela Bananahammock”, and make it out to be two different people. Notwithstanding is the general statements concerning Cheryl’s lack of sanity and the fact that people believe she’s bat-sh!t crazy (as tongue in cheek as it can be, encyclopediadramatica has a lovely entry on her). Someone who is that off the wall wouldn’t be beyond internet sock puppetry. Also curious, as a point of mention, is the idea that where you appear, she does not. Where she appears, you do not. Do other voices in your head count as “co-founders”? Odd that for someone you supported so much, that you wouldn’t follow her other blogs, her facebook page, or other items and post in her defense, or at all….curious.

            Let’s get to brass tacks. Pharos likely equated you with her…but why would he do that? Was it because he too believed you were one and the same? You even stated his reasoning for it: “The modern “Free Soil Party” appears to consist of a blog only, and to not have any significant real-life presence.” He dismissed you/her on the same grounds, after no one was able to really find anything of note. Also, while we’re at it, he kind of dismissed entirely the idea of the Free Soil party. All very coincidental, right? Except that (or this, if you prefer) issue seems to crop up multiple times. Again, if it quacks like a duck…

            “. I say of course because this is Wikipedia, after all, which is notorious for its gender imbalance and hostility to feminism.”

            Except that it’s really not. “Hostility to feminism” is different than “making sure things which need to be neutral are kept that way”. Your projection and view of the world is one thing, but injecting it into another page, especially one for history or items which really aren’t directly related, is another. There are also plenty of pages there, including the actual page for Feminism, which aren’t neutered or that could be considered weak tea. I mean, we can argue that there is imbalance, but…that’s more for your end, methinks. But yes, please try to inject more personal and social philosophy into what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. It would likely do wonders for things like facts, statistics, etc.

            “You can believe whatever you like; it does not make it true. ”

            Now you’re just copying me. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, after all. :)

            “Would you agree that most people on this site do believe abortion is murder? ”

            Have I seen that posted by individuals? Sure. Do I believe people believe that? Sure. But you’re taking a small sample of data (my opinion) and then trying to somehow weave that into a much larger group to establish correlation. That’s a fallacy, dearie.

            “Are you splitting hairs, or just prefer to concede the law currently does not support that? ”

            Short term memory loss can be a stunning and disheartening experience. A refresher. Two days ago, I said the following:

            “Likely because *I* *never* *claimed* *it* *was* to start with in the
            discussion. The least you could do is attribute things to me that I did
            say. I don’t believe anything below the fetal viability mark is
            “murder”…morally, I find it repugnant, but it doesn’t fit the legal
            definition of murder. Try again.”

            I stated plainly what my thought on the matter was. If an abortion at 6 weeks were considered legal murder, it wouldn’t be legal to have an abortion. Not hard logic to follow. Why are you trying to warp something I’ve said straight forward into something else entirely? What’s being said plainly speaks for itself. I don’t need to “concede” a point when it’s one I agree with..concession comes after a person disagrees, then is shown to be incorrect or somehow engaged in faulty logic. I cannot concede a point on which we both agree. As one of my favorite lines from a movie goes…”I do not think it means what you think it means”.

            “. I think you use the word loosely, but that is perhaps more common than
            the way I use it. I prefer to use the word in its strictest sense,
            because it is so easy to misinterpret and manipulate evidence and
            statistics.”

            Then please logically and formally place a rebuttal to where you believe the error has been made. You know, like actual debate would go. If my facts are wrong, loose, incorrect, or some other misstep has been made, then refute it directly. The fact that you say “well, i think it’s wrong” and then offer no actual proof is not a rebuttal. It’s an opinion, and that’s being gracious. If I’m wrong and you can demonstrate as to the why and how, then please do so. I’d welcome the challenge.

            ” I prefer to use the word in its strictest sense, because it is so easy to misinterpret and manipulate evidence and statistics.

            Yet you offer none. When challenged, you offer no viable proof of your argument. You didn’t offer, as just stated, evidence of a misstep or error on my part. You just claimed there was, then left it to twist in the wind.

            “You are amusing, Marcus, but I find myself getting bored with your silly lies, evasions, hairsplitting, and distortions.”

            I am glad I can provide entertainment, but please…don’t thank me. You’ve been more than entertaining in your own right. I find it odd that you accuse me of these things, then offer no real proof that they’ve happened, especially with regards to hairsplitting and distortions. The only person who has been caught in a rather obvious lie, or effort to evade such a lie, has been you….projection and obfuscation seem to be the watchwords of the day with you. If you can refute what i’ve said with actual proof and facts, and not anything past the fact that there is,in fact, a Free Soil page on Wikipedia…then please do so or stop wasting your own time by publicly making a fool of yourself. At the very least, the entire discussion about your identity is a case study in distortion…but we’ve beaten that horse to death already, haven’t we Cheryl?

            I’ll address your other silly posts here momentarily. :)

          • Aletha

            Wikipedia deleted the page because Ms. Seelhoff was deemed insufficiently noteworthy. Somehow when Larry Flynt sued the Religious Right and won, it was a major sensation, but a woman who sued the Religious Right for putting her homeschooling magazine out of business and won, no big deal, right? Certainly not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, unlike Larry Flynt! But then, Wikipedia is far more friendly to pornographers than feminists.

          • MarcusFenix

            I’m going to tackle this without being condescending, because you may have a point.

            I would contest that, while i would find it unfair for one to have that treatment and not the other, Larry Flynn carries name recognition. Cheryl, on the other hand, doesn’t. Larry Flint has been touted in major news for years, due to the pornography business. It would stand to reason that he would gain more attention in the matter than the homeschooling magazine. I agree it is unfair, in practice, but not a stretch to really examine why.

            I wouldn’t take that, however, as a wholesale endorsement by Wiki for Flynn, and thereby extend that into the idea that because he has a page, that it’s more friendly, etc. Feminists have their own pages there, and are contributors and editors, as well as being consumers of the site. Again, it stands to reason that Flynn would have a page, but Seelhoff wouldn’t in that respect. It’s not a snub to the entirety of feminism.

            The best course of action would be to create the full page again. If Cheryl is a public figure of sorts, and the items posted about her can be verified as correct, then someone who takes the link down or reports it would be in the wrong. You could go through the appeals process to correct that, and the staff there are more inclined to keep such things. Wiki, and it’s pages, are no stranger to controversy.

          • Aletha

            From the dictionary link you provided, definition 1a of life says, “the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.”

            Do you believe a fetus before viability is a vital and functional being? How about a fertilized egg?

            Definition 5a says, “the period from birth to death.” It does not say from conception to death. How is it every biology book disagrees with the dictionary you chose to cite? Or is this another example of your sloppy research?

            I do not believe a fetus is dead before it becomes viable, but neither is it a living child. It is closer than an egg, fertilized or not, but these are all forms of potential life, not yet functional enough to survive. At some point in pregnancy that changes, and the fetus becomes viable, functional enough to survive outside the womb, at least with the help of modern technology. At a later point it becomes functional enough to survive without the aid of any technology.

            Another thing you like to ignore is that nobody likes abortion, nobody thinks it is fun, or a good method of contraception, and the decision is never frivolous or easy, but nevertheless, that decision whether or not to bring that fetus into the world is for the pregnant woman to make. Who are you to judge it morally repugnant?

          • MarcusFenix

            “Do you believe a fetus before viability is a vital and functional being? How about a fertilized egg?”

            Vital, as in posessing life (the ability to grow, absorb nutrients, perform metabolic functions, and other such items as what classifies life…), then yes, I do. You’re missing “vital” with “viable”…which are two different matters.

            ” How is it every biology book disagrees with the dictionary you chose to cite?”

            Cherry picking Websters is a bit of a stretch, as well as the fact as you went down to the 5th possible definition. You had to skip the other 4 to get there. We can agree that there is some debate about the matter, or we can try other places, but Biology recognizes the following:

            “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead
            organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as
            metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation
            to the environment originating from within the organism.”

            http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+life

            A zygote or fetus is not dead. It’s not inanimate. It can perform metabolic functions. It grows. It has cells that reproduce, and later in growth (after birth) has the possibility to reproduce. It responsds to the stimuli of it’s environment (the womb, conditions which can change there based on the health of the mother, chemical changes, etc), and adapts to its environment as it grows and develops. So much for cherry picking that. We can go round and round, but your bit about the dictionary is weak.

            ” do not believe a fetus is dead before it becomes viable, but neither is it a living child.”

            On that we agree. I cannot compare a zygote to a teenager in such a respect. The term “living child” would be applied to the teenager, but that’s more semantics than anything from abortion supporters. You agree that the zygote would be alive, which is a good start, but comparing a fetus to a 10 year old, or a teenager, is apples and oranges. But, as you state…both are, in fact, alive, hence part of the crux between pro life and pro abortion platforms.

            “but these are all forms of potential life”

            You just said it was alive, but not a “living child”. Either the fetus is alive, or it’s dead. Is it “potential life” when it’s performing active cellular functions and growing? No. If it were to potentially be alive, then that would be a state of being in the future. A sperm or egg separately have potential to create life. When they join, and the cellular process of growth starts, then even you agree it must be alive (dead things don’t grow).

            “not yet functional enough to survive.”

            Long term coma patients would die without being fed, hydrated, bathed, etc. They’re not functional in any way. Same difference, with only the fact that you’re talking about a born person versus a child in utero. Functionality doesn’t equate life so much in that sense. Is a paraplegic somehow less alive because they’re less functional as well? Notice the slope that such an idea forms on.

            “Another thing you like to ignore is that nobody likes abortion, nobody
            thinks it is fun, or a good method of contraception, and the decision is
            never frivolous or easy…”

            Yet, 98-99% of abortions are done as elective, non-medically necessary procedures. If people didn’t like abortion, then we wouldn’t be looking at over 55 million of them since Roe v. Wade. What you’re stating above doesn’t mesh with the reality of who gets abortions and their own stated reasons. Even more to the point, pro abortion supporters are fast to claim that abortions aren’t a bad thing, that guilt isn’t really a factor, and that it’s just business as usual afterwards. Here, you’re claiming the inverse. We agree it’s a horrible afterthought for contraception.

            “but nevertheless, that decision whether or not to bring that fetus into the world is for the pregnant woman to make.”

            Or perhaps the father which helped create that life? I’ll derail any MRA nonsense you throw at me, but you’re welcome to try. But the fact remains that (outside of specific medical procedures), it takes two to tango. I would point out that the argument states women should have the choice to have the child or not…but men should have zero input? Why is that not the case if the woman keeps the child? Men don’t get to walk away from that after the fact. If you want to talk about inequality, that issue is one rife with it.

            “Who are you to judge it morally repugnant?”

            No one more important than you to make the same judgmentor any other. Or the other 7 billion + people on this planet that, every day and for a myriad of reasons, make similar judgments. about a great many things. Asking “who are you to judge” is akin to basically saying I have no right to an opinion. Could I not turn that around and say “Who are you to judge whether I can make that judgment?” We can go round and round about that, but at the end of the day, are you just trying to silence my opinion because you disagree?

            Your last sentence is merely a way to try and marginalize or somehow dismiss someone with whom you disagree, and nothing more and for no other reason than that.

          • Aletha

            Try again, Marcus. I asked you to find me one place on Wikipedia attributed to me, or Ms. Seelhoff, besides that user page. I looked at all the links for my user activity. They all come up blank, except for that one user page and its revisions. Perhaps how the Internet works is a challenge for you?

            Also, find me one place anywhere on the Internet where I, or Ms. Seelhoff, linked to that user page. The only place you will find it is on a search engine page. That is because there are no links to it, except on Wikipedia itself, and now here.

            I hate Facebook, as you might easily ascertain by looking up my Facebook page. I put a few things up on there, and also on the Free Soil Party page. Heart (aka Ms. Seelhoff) has mixed feelings about Facebook, enough so that she took an extended vacation from it, but when she is posting, she posts frequently. That you cannot find us on the same venue is due to the fact that she has all but given up on the blog world. I have not, but when she was blogging, I commented frequently on her blog. But that was just sock puppetry, right? I have commented on her Facebook page a few times, but those would be hard to find.

            Yes, I should have given out a disclaimer about the Wiki page, but I did not expect anyone here would actually be interested enough to do a search, and personally, I do not consider Wikipedia important. Note I did not disown the Wiki page, or what is said there; I merely said I did not write it. Since Heart and I are both spokespersons for the Free Soil Party, is it surprising that we agree on a lot of things, or link to each other? However, for the record, I do not like the idea of a man tax or think a gift economy is practical, except possibly on a small scale. Since men in general make more money than women in general, men are already paying more income tax, but I do understand her rationale for that, namely that male violence against women has a tremendous social cost, so men ought to pay for it, similar to the principle of polluters paying for the pollution they cause. However, this bothers me because, as I have pointed out many times on feminist blogs and gotten into many heated arguments over it, men are not all alike, and taxing all men for the actions of some does not sit well with me. A man tax might cause men to be more aware of the epidemic of rape and battering, but I do not think that would justify it. Heart (Ms. Seelhoff) and I are both dreamers and visionaries, but I think she is a bit more idealistic and I am a bit more practical.

            As for the lack of dissension on feminist blogs, that is certainly not the case on Feminist Current, where I got attacked by the regulars for defending Joni Mitchell and pointing out the existence of actual man-hating feminists, or womensspace, Ms. Seelhoff’s blog, where I got into several heated arguments with these man-haters. But you think I am one of them? That certainly would be news to my significant other.

            I cannot prove I am not Ms. Seelhoff without revealing my real identity, which I will not do for any reason whatsoever. I was nearly murdered not so long ago, and I have other enemies who wish me ill.

            I may decide to respond to your other comments later, but I do demand that you post an example of my contributions to Wikipedia besides that user page, which I allowed my friend to use because she was barred. As I recall, I tried posting it as a real page some time after her page was deleted, but of course that was immediately detected and deleted.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Try again, Marcus. I asked you to find me one place on Wikipedia
            attributed to me, or Ms. Seelhoff, besides that user page. I looked at
            all the links for my user activity. They all come up blank, except for
            that one user page and its revisions. Perhaps how the Internet works is a
            challenge for you?”

            Let’s try this again, in a different way, since you can’t seem to do anything but recycle insults, when you didn’t actually disprove anything. You didn’t even scroll or click on anything on that page, I bet.

            Start by going to google. Search “User Aletha & Wikipedia” Guess what it immediately redirects to? You, right. Here’s your link.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aletha_freesoil

            So, pray tell why THIS is your first line in YOUR user information there?

            “Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (June 3, 1952) is the former editor of Gentle Spirit magazine,[1] a homeschooling and homesteading
            magazine, published between 1989 and 2001, that reached a readership of
            approximately 35,000 before being forced from the marketplace in a
            well-publicized anti-trust lawsuit,”

            Yeah.

            There are also links and information there. Since the internet is tough, let me help you.

            12 items listed as references.
            7 items listed under your biography.
            14 external links.going to websites, though a few are copies.

            You’re saying that’s your page. You’re also trying to tell us that you happen to let someone “borrow” it…*after* we called you on it.

            I’m not even going to pretend that you and Cheryl are different people. But there are a few dozen links that lead away from *your* user page. Here, so you don’t have to hurt yourself…

            http://www.gentlespirit.com/ (this site is actually dead, but you list it anyway)
            http://womensspace.org/

            The blog entry listed after goes immediately to the last address there.

            Coalition website..failed to pull anything up, after multiple attempts.

            http://cheryllindseyseelhoffforpresident.wordpress.com/
            http://heartforpresident.wetpaint.com/ (dead link)
            http://www.salon.com/2000/10/02/homeschooling_battle/ (written by someone else about you)

            “Confronting” website was no longer available, as well as one about the military, the motherhood revolution, the one after that as well, and another….

            http://www.salon.com/2000/10/02/homeschooling_battle/ (dead link)
            http://www.wnetwork.com/Movies.aspx/show/index.asp (listed as a forbidden domain….very odd)

            Notice how anything about you comes up, or doesn’t depending on the site…but that everything Aletha tracks back to you. Yet, you wish us to believe that you’re two distinct people.

            Or…the more rational and likely conclusion is…you’re one and the same. In context, it would be easily noted that because you’re one and the same, finding other sites that have you listed seperately would be rough. As a matter of fact, and past reading comprehension, i mentioned that very thing in my last post. You’re asking me to try and find things that don’t exist to use as proof. You post here, under this name. When Cheryl posts….you’re nowhere to be found. Why is that? Do you not support your very dear friend, ever? Notice that people here, even some of the more infrequent posters, post on other places when we’re on other sites. You/Cheryl…not so much.

            I’m kind of done pretending you’re two different people. If your shrink tells you that the other voices are ok as long as you’re not hurting yourself..that’s fine.

            I hate Facebook, as you might easily ascertain by looking up my Facebook page.”

            “Yes, I should have given out a disclaimer about the Wiki page, but I did
            not expect anyone here would actually be interested enough to do a
            search, and personally, I do not consider Wikipedia important.”

            So, you didn’t do it because you assumed that people having a logical debate with you…..wouldn’t fact check your sources and information? Please tell me that you’re kidding. You did consider it important, enough to post as a user there. With the premise you and Cheryl are one and the same, you did so on multiple occassions. It maybe that you find it less important..because you got booted from there under “Heart” because of lacking the community standard for the page that was removed? Just saying.

            The bit in the middle…just skipping. Engaging that would be under the premise that you and her are different people. So, no.

            “But you think I am one of them? ”
            You started out your postings about how “male theories” have trashed the world, about how horrible men are, etc….your entire premise for these things came across as incredibly misandrist in nature. Why would anyone, after what you’ve said repeatedly, believe any different? The fact you’re a heterosexual female in a relationship with a man doesn’t change your world view. You made an exception with a person. Your broad, overall, and breathtakingly overreaching views stated here do nothing to squelch commentary otherwise.

            Your page, or Cheryl’s page? I didn’t look for Aletha there. You could link your page, and that might be a good start, eh?

            “. I have not, but when she was blogging, I commented frequently on her blog. But that was just sock puppetry, right?”

            Commenting on your own pieces under a different name would be, yes. Going and arguing with other people on other sites doesn’t really prove much. I can just as easily change my handle name, or create a second account and proxy myself however I like to avoid detection without some major backtracking. As an aside, and for example..I only use this name here on Disqus. I have an entire different handle for other accounts, such as message boards, gaming, etc….with a completely different email address. Go figure, eh?

            “I cannot prove I am not Ms. Seelhoff without revealing my real identity, which I will not do for any reason whatsoever.”

            True…but then again, I don’t expect you to. But then you drop this little gem…

            ” I was nearly murdered not so long ago, and I have other enemies who wish me ill.”

            So, you’re in the same identical situation as Cheryl…but you’re not Cheryl. You say, almost like a parrot, the same things Cheryl says…but you’re not Cheryl? She was almost murdered, “not so long ago”, and she’s regularly critisized, or…another way to state it is that her “enemies wish her ill”.

            How is anyone being even remotely rational *not* going to draw the comparison, given those statements when paired with the rather large block of evidence that you (99% likely) are in fact Cheryl….i mean, this isn’t outside of the realm of possibility. I can’t entirely dismiss that you might be telling the truth, but….you can clearly see where one set of information and facts clearly outweigh your personal promise that you’re different people.

            “I may decide to respond to your other comments later, but I do demand
            that you post an example of my contributions to Wikipedia besides that
            user page, which I allowed my friend to use because she was barred.”

            Demand all you like. I’m not saying you went and created a second page for Aletha, and then one for Cheryl. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I’m claiming, quite simplistically, that you’re one and the same. If you just decided to use the same page for everything…why would I need to find a second page? Come on, this is common sense. Demand, indeed. And of course, any evidence that would prove your claim doesn’t exist………see what I mean?

            I’m not going to entertain the idea that somehow we’re all just really confused, and you absolutely have to be right. It’s just not worth much more time, when you’re asking us to produce evidence of such, when you know full well that by pretending to be 2 people on 1 single posting account, etc….that a second account wouldn’t be found. That likewise would defeat the argument of 2 people on 1 account, etc…..But honestly, no one here believes you. There are 3 people (myself and two others) who looked at this, and came to the same consensus independently. I showed your musings to 5 other people (1 Ph.D’s, a clinical pyschologist, and 3 random friends) who all came to the same identical conclusion. It’s not just me. :P

          • Aletha

            Try again, Marcus. You said I was an editor at Wikipedia on feminist issues. You called me on hypocrisy because of that. Yet the only thing I have posted there is that user page, which Ms. Seelhoff wrote about herself. No other contributions whatsoever, for either her or myself. How do you reconcile such a flat out contradiction? You are just evading the issue. You, or perhaps your buddies who did the “research,” made a mistake. You will not admit it. Too bad.

            This is my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/aletha.freesoil

            You have to be logged in to see it. I may have to tweak the new privacy settings; I wanted it to be public. This is the Free Soil Party page:
            https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Soil-Party/111461142227564

            The only handles I have used on the Internet are Aletha, Aletha Freesoil, and freesoil. Sock puppetry? You have no evidence, just you and your buddies jumping to illogical conclusions. Perhaps you impress your buddies, but I gave you credit for more intelligence than that. My mistake.

            Having a close call with murder at the hands of a man who claimed to love a woman is a more common experience for women than you think. My brush with death happened much later in life than Ms. Seelhoff’s. She was young and naive. I was neither, and should have known better than to ignore the warning signs, but I thought I knew him and would never have dreamed it would come to that pass. This is not relevant, but for you to say our situations were identical is just silly. Her life and mine have been very different, aside from that.

          • MarcusFenix

            “You said I was an editor at Wikipedia on feminist issues.”

            You are aware that someone with a user account, is by its very nature, an editor of a wiki, correct? It’s laughable that you started your rebuttal at that point. Even with the idea that the log isn’t present…the purpose of logging into an account is to edit and post. You’re saying your account has never done that? Ok then. Another item under the “unlikely” category.

            “You called me on hypocrisy because of that.”
            More because I believe you’re claiming to be two different people…but details, eh?

            “Yet the only thing I have posted there is that user page, which Ms.
            Seelhoff wrote about herself. No other contributions whatsoever, for
            either her or myself.”

            Wouldn’t that be you/her posting something there? This discussion about you vs her, and what you did or didn’t do, is kind of old, do you not agree? I mean, you’re trying to defend the indefensible…especially when this appears under your Wiki user heading:

            ” A former ardent Quiverfull
            proponent and birth-mother of eleven children, she has continued as a
            writer, and under the pseudonym “Heart” a highly read blogger, devoted
            to radical feminist causes.”

            That is you…calling yourself Cheryl…and now saying you didn’t…ooook. You also posted that, again…while under the name “Aletha”. You would have to show me incredibly strong evidence as to why Cheryl would be banned from the start. Let’s also consider this. If she were banned, those are from a topic. She could have recreated a user name. If she were blocked, on the other hand (which is unclear if that’s your claim, but….), banning takes place on the IP level. It wouldn’t matter whose name she used. Her IP address would be banned, and she wouldn’t be able to log in at all. Why do you think this wouldn’t sound fishy to anyone else? You can’t even admit that the entire things is rather jacked up and that it reeks of problems from your end.

            You’re splitting hairs with the rest of it, honestly.

            “You, or perhaps your buddies who did the “research,” made a mistake. You will not admit it. Too bad.”

            You are correct that i do not see the user activity log…though I do not know why. I can admit that particular item is a slight on my part. But notice how you have to nitpick the user activity on the log as a way to refute the entire thing? That’s not even in the same zip code as being rational. Notice i admit a mistake when i make it. You’re still back peddling from yours.

            I looked at your facebook. It’s set to public, all posts you have are there. You’ve eluded to the idea that you and Cheryl post back and forth, etc….yet…there’s something wrong.

            The entirety of your Facebook page is nothing but posts. There’s no sharing activity from other users. There’s no comments, from anyone including Cheryl. There’s not a single user activity on the entire page, all the way back to the first post on June 15, 2010 with the first post from you. There’s nothing else there. At all. Some of your items are just links to news, others are musings. I see you have a few friends, but…you have a page with no actual activity other than postings done by you. Curious why that is, even though the profile is public. I’m sure it’s not a sock puppet account, right?

            “The only handles I have used on the Internet are Aletha, Aletha
            Freesoil, and freesoil. Sock puppetry? You have no evidence, just you
            and your buddies jumping to illogical conclusions.”

            Or…all of this talk about you and Cheryl, and your increasingly desperate attempt to distance yourself from the situation. There is that. Also, it wouldn’t account for all of the ties that (coincidentally, I’m sure..because evil men are conspiring, people are out to get you and murder you, and so on….) between you and Cheryl where it appears you’re one and the same….and so on. We can repeat this as much as you like, but again, we’re supposed to take you at your word.

            Likely, as you mentioned before..you didn’t count on anyone going to look. What was found makes the idea that you’re simply posing as both persons incredibly likely….and incredibly unlikely you’re telling the truth. Of course, you have no proof to offer (either because of death threats…….right……or that it was somehow deleted, or insert other reason here) other than your word, which i’m supposed to take without question. Take without question, I might add, while setting aside the incredibly sizable amount of information that points to the contrary.

            “Perhaps you impress your buddies, but I gave you credit for more intelligence than that. My mistake.”

            The mistake was assuming we wouldn’t go look. The mistake was then trying to walk the dog backwards in order to distance yourself from it. The mistake was presuming that you could talk your way out of being publicly called out and made to look like a liar, who happens to be slightly off kilter. Your mistake was assuming people should just believe what you say, when you say it, contrary to anything else in front of them. Your mistake was the idea that we would somehow participate in a suspension of disbelief. You were very wrong. Insults about it otherwise won’t change a thing.

            “Having a close call with murder at the hands of a man who claimed to
            love a woman is a more common experience for women than you think.”

            Perhaps one could argue that. One could also argue that the story sounds the same as Cheryl, eh? I mean, there’s only so many times where the word “coincidence” can be used before they’re just not coincidences anymore. That becomes especially true, when you post this:

            “This is not relevant, but for you to say our situations were identical is just silly.”

            And yet, they were. How…coincidental. Your claim they happened at different times, etc…just no supporting evidence. The fact your situation, almost to a T, mimics hers is something we should dismiss or ignore…and your rationale for that is because (gasp) you say it ain’t so. Got it.

            Let’s conclude, if you wish. You have no proof to counter the argument that you’ve been given. Your rebuttals are nitpicked phrases, but even you admit you can’t prove me incorrect. We’re at a stalemate, effectively. You’re not going to admit it, and I will not relent in the absence of strong proof that I’m mistaken. I’m willing to give you the out on this, if you wish to take it, but you’re not going to change my mind without evidence, which you state you cannot provide or that it doesn’t exist.

            Your call.

          • http://www.IKnowbo.com/ Slam1263

            As someone with several hundred wiki edits, I find that people attach too much esteem towards their endeavors.

            My contributions to the field of Computer science dwarves the snark that has gained me the most attention.

            MarcusFenix, the reason I follow you is; You tend to approach situations with reason.

            That, good sir, is an commodity that is in short supply on the InterWebs.

          • MarcusFenix

            I try…sometimes I do fall short though. It’s good to have someone keeping me on my toes if and when it’s needed.

            I think it’s a commodity that is lacking everywhere, and just happens to have spread to here as a natural extension.

            Should I slip, I’m counting on you to kick my butt on it. :)

            Cheers!

          • Aletha

            OK, Marcus. What was that about short-term memory? Perhaps this will jog yours, from three days ago?

            “Because, here you are, in all your glory, as a contributor to (GASP!!!!) Women’s Issues on Wiki….among multiple other items!

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

            There you are. That link can be found in multiple spots, such as from freesoil, etc…..that links right back to you.”

            Perhaps you can explain what you were talking about? There is no activity log because there was no activity! At least you concede you cannot explain that!

            As I stated, I hate Facebook. I have a token presence there, and have made a few comments on pages of friends, but have never taken an interest in using its features. I much prefer blogging, and for several years I confined myself almost exclusively to my own blog and commenting on womensspace. Heart was much more prolific, both in writing and networking. Since Heart has been blogging so infrequently recently, I have branched out, posting on the blogs of Gloria Feldt (yes, that ex-President of Planned Parenthood), and more recently Meghan Murphy, and here I am venturing into hostile territory.

            Regardless, it does not really matter to me who you think I am, or if you think the Free Soil Party is all in my head. I did not expect to have any credibility here. I just came here at the invitation of Adam Peters, to make a few points. If they were not well received, or sneered at as drivel, what a surprise! Not!

          • MarcusFenix

            You may have caught me in a misstep of sorts, but not done on purpose. Allow me a redo, since you’ve gotten so many.

            As stated in my last post…
            “You are aware that someone with a user account, is by its very nature, an editor of a wiki, correct?”

            A user account on Wiki….is a contributor. The fact that I cannot see the activity log could be for a few reasons, the least of which is I don’t have an account there. If you have no activity there, then thats fine and I’d concede that point to some degree. What doesn’t go along with that concession is the following….again

            Every search engine I’ve used (Bing, Google, Yahoo, etc) points in one direction. When you search “aletha freesoil”, it points to Cheryl. Not just at Wiki, either. Every link that has “your” name…points to hers too. Did she use every account of yours on the internet? Likely not. All of the links that can be found the Wiki user page (at the bottom, as noted previously) all backtrack to things of Cheryl, such as her presidential bid page. But searching in Google and the like yields the same result.

            Your explanation: “Oh, i let her use it”. Convenient, given that you’ve stated you have no actual means to prove you’re correct, to even prove you’re telling the truth about it at all, and no way to explain the plethora of “coincidences” between your name appearing and hers. You’ve claimed you’re the co-founder of the FSP, etc…but it’s rare to find you outside of that one page, where it’s not a reference to Cheryl.

            Let me be direct about it. 9 out of 10 searches for your name immediately go to Cheryl Seelhoff. We could consider that it’s a massive glitch. We could consider that it’s a conspiracy against feminism by men, who run the internet. We could consider that all of these things, sans proof from you, are as you have explained.

            We could also consider the very easily arrived at conclusions that I’ve laid out before. Which do you believe reasonable people are going to think is the more likely scenario? Horrible results and stupid search engines, conspiracies against you, to include murder attempts, threats against your health, an all out war against women by Lord knows who, all without a shred of proof……..or, that you’re full of it.

            Not hard to see where people would go with this. We can consider this horse thoroughly beaten, correct? Well, one more go-round, if you please.

            “As I stated, I hate Facebook. I have a token presence there, and have made a few comments on pages of friends”

            Perhaps. I have 1 facebook page (my personal one), and one I’m going to start in the next 30 days or so for a professional endeavor I’m considering. But your page has things which strike me as being quite the anomaly. There’s only you there. Even “heart”, a friend there…has Cheryl’s picture…but it’s not Chery’s actual facebook page, and her main page isn’t a public figure profile, so…there’s that. On yours, there’s….nothing. Just you. Nothing other than what you’ve shared. No one links to you. No one tagged you in anything, ever. Not a single comment, for 3 years worth of postings, from anyone…even guests. I don’t even remember seeing a single “like” at all, but I’ll admit I could have missed those. But I’ve hit the “like” button 10,000 times or more, just for random stuff. Yours has zero. None. Zip.

            All of those things considered together….strikes me as overly, terribly (and coincidentally)….VERY odd. But, so be it.

            “here I am venturing into hostile territory. ”

            I would point out that there are people who disagree regularly here, and yet even they don’t see the territory is hostile. Hostile, does however, come into play when you start posting somewhere about how evil men really are, and so on. Your first posts here, before we delved into the rabbit hole of identity, were misandrist and negative in nature. You purposely made comments, that could be argued…not because you wanted a debate, but because you wanted to say something negative that fits with your narrative, and is a projection of your personal view of things. You can scan around my own posts and see where i’m polite with people…but at some point, there’s a limit to that. I was even polite to you, at first. Acting like a shrill harpy and talking down to someone because they have testicles isn’t a way to get ahead. It’s not good form, right? Hostile came from you first. I just give better than I get. Consider it a bonus. :)

            “Regardless, it does not really matter to me who you think I am, or if you think the Free Soil Party is all in my head. ”

            The FSP isn’t just in your head. It was an actual political party, which was absorbed mostly by Republicans, and largely forgotten, close to 1855-56, if memory serves. It’s possible you’re trying to resurrect such a group, which is fine…but it’s not something that the mainstream media follows, that very very very very few people have even heard about, and certainly (outside of what political ambitions you may have) has never swayed policy or successfully even campaigned for public office. I know that the longest journey starts with a single step, but you guys have been taking a single step for the better part of 10 years or so, correct? Just for the sake of conversation…you backed a candidate who believes men should be taxed…for being men. Your candidate believes in a “gift economy”, which in context makes Communism look like the best idea ever. She backs massive funding for learning how to speak with animals, along with many more items. They can be found here:

            http://cheryllindseyseelhoffforpresident.wordpress.com/the-earth/

            There is practically zero support for any of that…and that’s assuming people would even be familiar with a gift economy from the start. You’re not going to win hearts, influence people, or change policy with a candidate and platforms that people don’t understand, can’t function under, and that are blatantly sexist against anyone. That’s just the facts.

            ” I did not expect to have any credibility here.”

            There’s not a single person here, that i’ve seen, which wouldn’t give you the benefit of conversation, much less credibility…but there’s a limit. The lengthy discussion of identity was one which stretched and broke that. Your original posts, as stated, established you as someone hostile and looking for a fight…particularly, men and how you view them, etc. I’ll give you credit where it’s due, with the other post about Flynn…and discuss things calmly and directly. It’s tough to take someone’s credibility away, but that which we give freely to others is a different matter altogether.

            ” I just came here at the invitation of Adam Peters, to make a few points.”

            I find that interesting. Strange, but interesting. That does give me something to think about, overall. Thanks for the info.

            “If they were not well received, or sneered at as drivel, what a surprise! Not!”

            Man-bashing isn’t well received generally, especially when there’s no call for it. Your aggressive tone from the start, and the items you tied to that tone, were sneered at and called drivel. I’m just not sure why there would be shock or surprise in that respect.

            It’s all about the approach, Aletha.

            If you want to discuss something, rationally and whatnot..i’ll be around. You’re free to do so anytime. Just understand that not everyone here is a pushover, and that while some of us try to be polite…for everything, there is a season.

            Speaking of, time to pack…wrap some xmas gifts for family, and…shovel snow. Gotta love living in the mountains. <_<

            Blessed be, Aletha. :)

          • Aletha

            No comments at all on my Facebook page, Marcus? Is this another example of your sloppy research? There are only a few, and most of them are my own followups, as is also the case on my blog, but my post about the Facebook movie on September 27, 2010 got comments from two other people, one you claim is me and another who has interacted with both Heart and me for many years, since the days of the long defunct Ms. Magazine bulletin board where I think Heart first heard of the modern Free Soil Party. Evidently a few weeks earlier, according to your theory, I sent myself a silly message that I missed myself, and answered it! My post about Fukushima also got a comment, and I had a brief discussion about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps you could not be bothered to scroll down that far, or perhaps since you are not a friend, you could not see the comments? BTW I have no trouble seeing the contributions of other users on Wikipedia, without logging in, so your inability to find any contributions of mine besides that user page which I allowed my friend to use as a scratch pad obviously has nothing to do with having an account there.

            Pray enlighten me, where is this real Facebook page for Ms. Seelhoff? As far as I know, she only has the one linked in my friends list. Occam’s Razor does not favor your theory of my elaborate web of deception and sock puppetry. What if I am telling the truth? Would that not much more simply explain all these “coincidences?” They are not coincidences; she and I are of like minds in many areas, but not all. Is that so strange that it seems impossible to you? Her approach to blogging, Facebook, and networking is much different than mine, as is her life experience. Yet we agree more often than not. Why is that so strange?

            I have had enough of this nonsense. As I said, I only came here to make a few points, fully expecting them to fall on deaf ears, and I have no time to engage with more than a few of your distortions and fabrications, let alone answer anyone else. Sorry, my free time is sorely limited, and I have obviously overstayed my welcome. FYI, this was the initial invitation Adam Peters sent me, two weeks ago yesterday:

            “Hey Aletha,

            I saw that you commented over at Feminist Current a little while ago. I just published an article that I quoted Meghan in, so you can check it out here if you like:

            http://liveactionnews.org/rhetorical-object-lessons-four-ways-to-improve-your-game/#

            Have a good day,

            Adam. “

          • MarcusFenix

            Looks like that horse needs another beating, is it not dead enough?

            “No comments at all on my Facebook page, Marcus?”

            I said I didn’t see any. If I missed it, then so be it. I can admit I didn’t scroll it so slowly as to make sure. But, let’s be real for a second. I didn’t count ones where YOU commented on YOUR page. That’s not someone else commenting. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. You also follow it with this:

            “but my post about the Facebook movie on September 27, 2010 got comments
            from two other people, one you claim is me and another who has
            interacted with both Heart”

            2 whole comments. In 3 years. Well shiver me timbers! A whopping 2 comments. Astounding. I missed 2 comments, out of THREE YEARS of postings. My apologies. How could I have been so careless as to not see this deluge of overwhelming messaging and responses! /sarcasm off

            ” Evidently a few weeks earlier, according to your theory, I sent myself a silly message that I missed myself, and answered it!”

            That’s what sock puppetry is all about. We’ve covered that, Cheryl. Moving on.

            ” My post about Fukushima also got a comment, and I had a brief discussion about the killing of Osama bin Laden.”

            One more comment!!! OMG, I’m totally incorrect. You’ve got such an intense number of people posting to you! By contrast, I put up that I have to take a crap on my FB page and get 3 times the responses from one post than you’ve gotten in 3 years. Can you not see how that looks?

            Possible I couldn’t see them. You did say things were public, though. If they weren’t, then I couldn’t see them and that would lead me to my “there were none” conclusion….which is based on the idea you stated it was, in fact public. My error, based on yours? Sure.

            “so your inability to find any contributions of mine besides that user
            page which I allowed my friend to use as a scratch pad obviously has
            nothing to do with having an account there.”

            Still on this? Search “aletha freesoil”. It goes directly to the wiki contributor page, with all of the information about Cheryl. Your story about how she borrowed the page after being banned doesn’t hold water, unless you typed it for her since the ban is based on IP. Either you’re saying you forgot to mention that you typed it, or…she hacked into Wiki to do it herself. Take your pick. :) either way, things reference from Cheryl to you and vice versa. You’ve yet to actually counter any of those items with any proof, and focus on the Wiki page, as if explaining it away removes the Gibraltar-size mountain of evidence pointing the other way. Good luck with that.

            “Pray enlighten me, where is this real Facebook page for Ms. Seelhoff?”

            You mean: https://www.facebook.com/cheryl.lindseyseelhoff?fref=ts

            “Occam’s Razor does not favor your theory of my elaborate web of deception and sock puppetry.”

            You’ve tried to distance yourself from this with a multitude of flimsy excuses and half-assed responses from the start. That statement there doesn’t really show that you understand the psuedo-scientific principle of Occam’s Razor. Using that as an idea…it’s more likely that you and Cheryl are the same person than not, given the instances you and her appear and so on. Why are you wasting such precious time as you say you have on going over the same details repeatedly?

            What if you are telling the truth? I’ve already stated it’s possible…but highly unlikely. I don’t discount that it’s possible. I also don’t discount that I’ve seen people go to extraordinary lengths online to conceal their identity. This would not be the most elaborate (or even well done) case I’d have come across. Of course, if it’s true, you’ve stated you have no way to actually prove it. That leaves us with a rather large question mark about it, which doesn’t -clarify- your position. It makes it weaker.

            ” Would that not much more simply explain all these “coincidences?”

            One or two times? Sure. But we’re not dealing with one or two instances of this. At some point, coincidence doesn’t explain it anymore. In this case (and no…if you want the full list, you’re going to have to go read them all again, because I’m not going to waste time typing out 2 weeks worth or arguments for you), we’re well past the point of coincidence.

            “They are not coincidences; she and I are of like minds in many areas, but not all.”

            Being of like mind is one thing. Every search engine on the planet linking you two together as being the same person when searched by independent name, on the other hand, is completely different. There are people which share, almost identically, my ideas and thoughts. People here, certainly. Search for Princess Jasmine. Her and I agree on literally everything, save one idea. You won’t find us as the same person. Search engines won’t turn me up as the person on her pages, and so on. Just because you claim that you “think alike”…would still, at some point, delineate down to different people. Searching for one wouldn’t automatically find the other.

            Unless it’s Google’s fault. And Bing. And Yahoo. And others. You get the point, i’m sure.

            ” Her approach to blogging, Facebook, and networking is much different than mine, as is her life experience.”

            Having addressed the social items already, your life experience sounds identical. Your only claimed difference is time. You’ve claimed that there was an attempt on your life. Cheryl claimed that. You’ve said there are “enemies who wish you ill”, also said by Cheryl. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other items which directly mirror in such a way. Oddly, you can’t tell us who these people are, or give details. You offer no facts to back up a single thing you’re saying.

            You’re asking us to believe something because of your upstanding character. You’re asking us to take you at your word. Even you already know that it takes credibility for people to do that. Yet, you cannot establish it at all, and the more info you provide, the more likely the conclusion others draw becomes. At this point, it just sounds like a bunch of excuses and childish antics to back away from something unpleasant. Something you said has happened before, yet didn’t bother to mention. Something you said defied the expectation that anyone would go looking for evidence of facts on your part.

            Strikingly odd, on those counts, don’t you think? Were our rolls reversed, I doubt you’d come to a different conclusion.

            “I have had enough of this nonsense. As I said, I only came here to make a
            few points, fully expecting them to fall on deaf ears, and I have no
            time to engage with more than a few of your distortions and
            fabrications, let alone answer anyone else.”

            Then stop posting. I’m not forcing your hand, or holding a gun to your head, to force text onto the screen. The fact you answered no one else other than me and Adam was a bit interesting, since you lead off discussions with the evils of us hateful, destructive, planet-killing men. You did skip the ladies. That’s not very polite. With respect…if they’re distortions and fabrications, they should be easy to knock down with facts and truth.

            Facts and truth, by your own admission….you somehow cannot provide. I find that quite the coincidence. Terribly convenient, even.

            “Sorry, my free time is sorely limited, and I have obviously overstayed my welcome.”

            But you’ve responded well enough for weeks on end. Or am I fabricating that aspect too? You haven’t overstayed your welcome. You’ve just spent 2 weeks arguing about your identity. You bypassed the remainder of discussion about actual events, to tackle this so ardently.

            That raises an interesting question. Did you lead me down a rabbit hole…or was this somehow my intent? Like the owl from the Tootsie Pop commercial says…the world may never know. ;)

            “FYI, this was the initial invitation Adam Peters sent me, two weeks ago yesterday:”

            I just said it was odd and that it gave me something to think about. I didn’t say you were lying. In fact, I confirmed that you were finally telling the truth about something, without waiting for your confirmation. Saying something was odd, on behalf of another persons’ actions, isn’t saying you’re a liar.

            Unless you have a guilty conscience.

            As I said before…you started this out as hostile. Your claims of things falling on deaf ears started the moment your arguments, as they were, began and happened so *because* of the way you started. I covered that before. Feel free to read that again.

          • Cheryl Seelhoff

            The FB page you linked to up there is one I created to keep bad people from creating a page in my name and pretending to be me. I don’t use it.

          • MarcusFenix

            Yes, because there’s a great deal of pretending going around. Why would anyone wish to pretend to be you? Just saying.

          • Cheryl Seelhoff

            Because a lot of people are vested in trashing radical feminists and making it appear as though we are saying things we have no interest in saying. Also because I once sued the religious right, won my lawsuit, and so have many enemies (some of whom are likely your friends, based on skimming this conversation). Anyway, that’s all I have to say. I am Cheryl Seelhoff, Heartsees, Aletha is Aletha.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Because a lot of people are vested in trashing radical feminists and
            making it appear as though we are saying things we have no interest in
            saying.”

            A public figure page on facebook would have solved that problem. As a long time user on the internet, you’d likely have known that. You, as a person saying you’ve had such problems, would have researched at least once about how to maintain privacy and keep your pages (regardless of where they are) tight and under control. You are telling me that apparently, anyone with a keyboard out there is just dying to pretend they’re you. How foolish.

            If someone else started a page and pretended to be you, it would be immediately obvious and able to be shown it’s not actually your own page. Your argument, Madam Council, is incredibly weak.

            “Also because I once sued the religious right, won my lawsuit, and so
            have many enemies (some of whom are likely your friends, based on
            skimming this conversation).”

            Name a single instance you can find where i mentioned a support of religion. Please. Take your time. I’ll wait for that. For a lawyer, you’re making a ton of logical mistakes and assumptions for which you have no proof, and for which I can tell you don’t exist. I could make the same set of silly assumptions, such as the 14 voices in your head usually go by the same name, except when you want to engage in sock puppetry.

            ” Anyway, that’s all I have to say. I am Cheryl Seelhoff, Heartsees, Aletha is Aletha.”

            Of course. Thanks for the massive wave of definitive proof, with your newly created name and all. Toodles.

          • Aletha

            http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_1848ny.htm
            “Before married women’s property acts were passed, upon marriage a woman lost any right to control property that was hers prior to the marriage, nor did she have rights to acquire any property during marriage. A married woman could not make contracts, keep or control her own wages or any rents, transfer property, sell property or bring any lawsuit.
            Before 1848, a few laws were passed in some states in the U.S. giving women some limited property rights, but the 1848 law was more comprehensive. It was amended to include even more rights in 1860; later, married women’s rights to control property were extended still more.”
            The Dark Ages extended well into the nineteenth century? That is news to me.

          • MarcusFenix

            Please, continue to treat sarcasm as somehow being accurate and completely within the bounds of picking on. Perhaps from this point forward, i’ll use the /sarcasm off tag in my postings, since you clearly missed it.

            But i’ll engage. For close to 150 years, that’s not been the case, as you pointed out. Are you still under the impression that the world works the same as in 1795? It clearly doesn’t, yet…you act as if it does in the US. If you want to compare how women are treated here versus places like the Middle East, we can very likely agree that the practices there are archaic and barbaric. But we don’t live there, and their laws are not ours.

            In dealing with what we -do- have on the legislative block in the US (or first world countries, in general if you like), women enjoy the same legal protections and benefits as men. Why pretend like all men view women as objects, fit only to be barefoot and in a kitchen? Clearly, that’s not the way it is overall. We can likewise agree that there are Neanderthals about (the story about Tucker, here a few days ago or so, is an excellent example of the stupidity of me), but they do not speak for everyone…and socially, their views are dismissed as hateful, ignorant, and unwanted. As they should be.

          • DianaG2

            Has Aletha responded to anything posted by a female? Or, is she just picking on Marcus and Adam because of gender?

            Wow.

          • MarcusFenix

            To be honest, no…i don’t believe she did. I also didn’t look, so I’m just spitballing here. It’s ok though. Mostly sure the conversation is done at this point, though you never know when people will come back and post.

          • DianaG2

            Just sayin’ :-)

          • Cheryl Seelhoff

            Aletha of Freesoil is not me. I am Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff/Heart Sees. My blog is here http://www.womensspace.wordpress.com. My Facebook page is under the name Heart Sees (and is not public, friends only). The wiki page you’ve linked to was trashed by 4chan/ /b/ Anonymous/Legion in 2007. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/misogyny-bares-its-teeth-on-internet/2007/08/20/1187462171087.html I don’t read here, never have, don’t participate in internet debate anymore for the most part– Aletha alerted me to all of this which has reminded me once again why I don’t.

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, “Cheryl”…you’re two weeks late to the party, and just now you’re showing up? More coincidence?

            I told her/you previously. It’s possible that you’re separate people. It’s just as likely that you’re not. I chose the “not” option.

            The fact that you have 1 post (this one), zero anything else…rather convenient, would you not agree?

            The reason you got nuked previously was because of your rather…colorful…stances on things. The reason you don’t could be a point of contention.

            This has been a fun exercise in futility, but…move along Cheryl. ;)

          • Cheryl Seelhoff

            I don’t know what you mean by being “nuked” previously. Aletha emailed me this morning or last night to tell me you’re insisting she is me. She isn’t. I post on the internet either under my own full name or under the screen name Heart Sees/Heartsees2 which I have used for over 10 years now. I don’t use any other screen names and neither does Aletha, that I’m aware of.

          • MarcusFenix

            The 4chan bit. That is what I called “nuked”..and it was, by those folks. From orbit. This is likely why you don’t debate anymore…and makes me question why you, on your FB page, state you work for a large law firm. I would expect someone who can pass the bar would be able to keep up with such rudimentary conversation, with less than 2 paragraphs.

            “Aletha emailed me this morning or last night to tell me you’re insisting she is me.”

            Why did she wait 2 weeks? Doesn’t that strike you as odd? It should.

            ” I don’t use any other screen names and neither does Aletha, that I’m aware of.”

            Of course. Except when she says you used hers. Which is something she forgot to mention until it became a point of the discussion much later. You’d think someone else (you) using her screen name, or in the case of her letting you use hers…would have been something she’d mention. Especially given the fact that this was, by her own admission, not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

            this is all quite fun, but…there’s nothing new here. We’re going back in the same circles as with the screen name Aletha.

          • Aletha

            It was six days ago you decided to drag our argument down this rabbit hole of identity confusion you created, Marcus. I took my time before deciding to inform Heart because I did not want her to feel compelled to waste her time on your confused nonsense, which initially I thought perhaps I could clear up myself. However, that has proved impossible, though at least now you concede it is only just as likely as not that she and I are two different women. Before you were saying that was a chance in ten million, no? .00001% chance I was telling the truth about that, you said, four days ago. I suppose that is progress, and I should be grateful for small favors!

            As for not responding to anyone besides men, my first reply was to Princess Jasmine, about her term womb lynchers. I presume she is female?

          • MarcusFenix

            Your ability to argue a logical point is sorely lacking. You’re not even in the same galaxy. You clearly are out of your depth. The fact you keep replying is a sign of desperation on your part to somehow validate a lost argument on your behalf. Give it up already.

            “It was six days ago you decided to drag our argument down this rabbit hole of identity confusion you created, Marcus.”

            Actually, you created it. You were the one who sent people looking for “aletha freesoil” and feminism on the internet. You, as you’ll recall, were the one who told us, specifically, that you didn’t actually expect people to research your facts and information. You, as you stated before, claimed to have had this sort of identity mix-up before, and yet said nothing. You didn’t make claims of anything even remotely to that effect until after 3 people had gone looking and all came to the same conclusion. Your own bullcrap lead us to this place. Bear that in mind.

            “. I took my time before deciding to inform Heart because I did not want
            her to feel compelled to waste her time on your confused nonsense”

            Or, you decided to have an account created (which it was, there was no user activity on the account that posted). I already know of 3 possible scenarios in which that could be made to look legit. You logged it yourself, which an admin would see, so it’s less likely. You asked one of your friends to do it, or you used a proxy (which, incidentally, you would have needed to use for “heart”, in order for “cheryl” to use in order to log into Wiki, since you stated specifically she was banned. That would have required a new IP, and using a proxy is child’s play).

            “However, that has proved impossible…”

            Actually, it’s not. You have someone post, with no way to actually verify themselves either. I mean, seriously. This isn’t that hard of a scenario to work around. To at least 2 others who emailed me independently, all you proved was that you’re eager to prove something without facts.

            “Before you were saying that was a chance in ten million, no? .00001%
            chance I was telling the truth about that, you said, four days ago.”

            Up until, magically and out of nowhere, someone claiming to be Cheryl popped up..you had me at a point where I had to consider it. With that stunt, you’re back to the 0.0001% range. If you were concerned that the confusion of identity was an issue, you would have told “cheryl” from the start, and you wouldn’t have dragged it out for 2 weeks. It creates a terrible air of convenience for her to pop up, just when you tell us you’re done with the argument. Just another coincidence, I suppose. But if you’re under the impression that it was somehow a 50/50 chance of things, allow me to dash that hope right here and now. It wasn’t, and whatever slight chance you might have had to convince me otherwise went away the moment your “Swoop and Poop” account there posted “Hi, I’m Cheryl”.

            Let’s finish this, once and for all. The overall appearance of things is that you and Cheryl are the same person. Anyone can generate a screen name on the internet, so that’s not proof nor does it make the two of you being the same person “impossible”. As much as it’s an ad hominem, you’re effing retarded to think that someone with a screen name is some definitive measure of identity proof. It’s laughable. Her arguments, even, were laughable…and that from someone who had to pass the Bar Exam? My left butt cheek could argue against her and win. Her own arguments were as flimsy as yours. Isn’t that another coincidence? ;)

            You have a rather sizable amount of items stacked against you, pointing to the easily drawn conclusion you’re one and the same. You, as stated, have no proof of it’s inverse. Your details are the same, for life experiences (someone tried to murder you both, both of you have these shadowy figures following you who wish you harm, search terms for one lead back to the other, etc…). You claim there’s no way for you to prove it. Your statement that something has been proved “impossible” is a joke, as has been most of your arguments. The fact i’ve entertained your insanity this long is a testament to human endurance, of this i’m sure. Whatever fantasy land you live in (and believe me, if you and “Cheryl” share even half of the same views, both of you will eventually try to speak to unicorns and some such nonsense), you can live in it.

            When you can prove me wrong, please do. Until then, feel free to continue struggling against something that no one believes. Exactly like your political platforms. Now, if you want to continue with this line of reasoning, please go ahead. We can do this ad nauseum, but the end result is that (without actually name calling…)I think you’re out of your mind. I genuinely believe you’re certifiable. That’s not a personal attack, but an observation. You certainly lack any decent debate skills. Your misandrist statements and total lack of anything resembling realistic vision of the world around you, in my opinion, makes you qualified for an “I love myself!” jacket at a nice, quiet facility for people with issues.

            “As for not responding to anyone besides men, my first reply was to
            Princess Jasmine, about her term womb lynchers. I presume she is female?

            Yes, you did. The other thing about responding to women was another person’s comments, that I commented on. Did you go comment there too? I didn’t look. Please continue, however, to cherry pick data (like your laughable and completely ridiculous bit about me missing those 3 posts on your FB, from 3 YEARS worth of posts.

            Whatever helps you sleep at night. You can, however, consider the argument of Cheryl as done. You never had a chance to win that, and never will.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            BOOM!

          • MarcusFenix

            Letting loose for a second…..

            It’s more like UUUUULLLLLLLLTTTTTTRRAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

            Yes, my inner geek/Killer Instinct is showing. ;) I really need more people to practice with on there. :(

          • PrincessJasmine4

            If only I had the time :-(

          • MarcusFenix

            You’d also have to get the new Xbox 1 too…so there’s that.

            As a far off side note, there’s some pretty bad-arse games coming out in the next year or so. You need to send me your xbox gamer tag and whatnot…get some friends going on this!

          • Aletha

            Marcus, this is to put you on notice that I am allowing you to believe you have won this debate, for now, but I will be making fair use of your bluster for my own purposes, later on my blog. It will not be soon; for the moment, you are a diversion, a minor annoyance in my scheme of things, but it will be there when I get around to completing my rebuttal.

            It is not hard to understand why you think Ms. Seelhoff and I are interchangeable; for minds like yours and debates like these, we might as well be one mind. In your fantasy world, your speculations become reality to you, and to those of like mind who read here. I see this debate as about moral principles, but you decided to make it about character assassination, arguing I am hypocritical for deriding the antifeminist bias of Wikipedia when I have a user page there, or for being a sock puppet for Cheryl Seelhoff (or do you think it is the other way around?). All you have demonstrated is how easily you can become completely convinced of something that is completely false. On my blog, the veracity of your words will not be taken for granted, as it is here, or the words of anyone else, for that matter. I will take you up on your challenge to debate one on one, in my own way, on my blog. Then we shall see where your theories lead, and where they came from, and who is credible.

          • MarcusFenix

            So, allow me to get this straight, so i make sure I have this right.

            First, this is one of the more childish responses I’ve ever seen, in my entire life. You’re “putting me on notice”? I don’t even know where to begin. How utterly foolish can you act at this point? This little discussion of ours ended quite some time ago…and here you are, harping on it again, in the most bloviating manner possible. Get over yourself. I don’t need your notice to know what happened. It’s all on text here.

            “It will not be soon; for the moment, you are a diversion, a minor
            annoyance in my scheme of things, but it will be there when I get around
            to completing my rebuttal.”

            If i’m such a minor diversion..why would you then go and spend all of this time, in your super secret underground lair, to plan and plot my verbal demise on some random mystery blog as to yet be determined at some vague and hazy point in the not so immediate future? Do you realize how backwards that is? if I’m not worth that much, and such a small fish…you’re wasting a HUGE amount of time for nothing.

            Also, why could you not have done your rebuttal here? I mean, if you have information that rebukes my assertion, you wouldn’t need time (months possibly, who knows?) to go and set it up. I mean, what can I accomplish in the next few months? Backdate some log entries on another website? Post random things in place, to make a presence known elsewhere, with other names? Proxy my IP after at least 20 bounces to look like i’m writing you from virtually anywhere on the planet? You had weeks to provide a solid rebuttal. You didn’t do it, at all. That’s just facts.

            “t is not hard to understand why you think Ms. Seelhoff and I are interchangeable;”

            It’s not hard for anyone else either. Is this statement you conceding that *I* could have been right(to borrow your own phrasing)?

            ” for minds like yours and debates like these, we might as well be one
            mind. In your fantasy world, your speculations become reality to you,
            and to those of like mind who read here.”

            I would counter that if it were such an easily dismissed fantasy, like believing in Santa Clause, you would have just as easily dismissed it with facts. Notice how those keep getting in the way…pesky things, those facts.

            “I see this debate as about moral principles, but you decided to make it about character assassination,”

            Let’s be clear. I have no problem arguing about moral or logical issues. Please, feel free to pick a topic, or log into one of the other stories here, and we can do just that. But remember something, if you please…you are the one who assassinated your own character. You even stated you didn’t think people were going to even bother to check into your background, or search for you as you said people should. Your own character assassination started when you believed that just your word alone was some magic bullet that dispelled all disbelief. You were mistaken. Then, you provide nothing but anecdotes, flimsy ideas, and nitpicked assessments of others to provide what was in your own fantasy world as proof indisputable for your claims. Yet even those were suspect. So we’re right back where we started.

            “arguing I am hypocritical for deriding the antifeminist bias of
            Wikipedia when I have a user page there, or for being a sock puppet for
            Cheryl Seelhoff (or do you think it is the other way around?).”

            Well, when it’s one big circle anyway….

            “All you have demonstrated is how easily you can become completely convinced of something that is completely false.”

            Of which you’ve clearly put to rest? Isn’t that why we’re having this worn discussion, yet again…because you were absolutely incapable of demonstrating otherwise? This isn’t rocket science, really.

            “On my blog, the veracity of your words will not be taken for granted”

            You’ve already taken them for granted. Why would I be under the impression you would be different, somewhere else? This is a public forum. You had a chance here. Just saying.

            Well, if you wish to start a blog, just over little ol’ me, then by all means. I wish you well in that venture. You’ll find it gets little traffic, because lets be honest. The internet isn’t interesting in a pissing contest between you and me. As a guy, I can tell you that against a woman, I can get at least 3 feet farther, and write my name (legibly, i should add) in the snow. You don’t want to get into that kind of contest. It’s not worth the time, unless….you’re just THAT hung up on me. I know I’m interesting and all, but if you want to take the time to do all of that, just to try and show up some random person on the internet….well, then, perhaps it’s time we also discussed some therapeutic options, such as regular treatments at the spa, or some other activity. Perhaps a hobby. But by all means, please feel free to create an entire website and blog dedicated to the pursuit of a person you’ve never met and never will. Please, tell me you’re going to buy hosting too, get a full domain. Hell, I want you to buy fresh coding too. Nothing says “it’s authentic!” as buying that.

            “I will take you up on your challenge to debate one on one, in my own way, on my blog”

            Way to throw down the gauntlet. Will there be a joust? Perhaps we could do this at a Ren-fest. There would be spectators, and honey mead, and most certainly busty wenches. We could gallop on horseback, trading verbal barbs and using blunted lances, until…well, until I got tired of that after about 2 minutes, grabbed a dragon’s leg and some mead, and walked off with the busty wenches, laughing about the matter audibly from 100 paces away.

            You could have done that here too, but you chose not to, and that’s fine. If there’s something to really debate about, maybe…but don’t you think this is just a little bit much? I mean, the over the top phrasing, as if you’re some downtrodden warrior, the “campeón de la justicia”, and you’re on a whirlwind mission to denounce evil, evil men everywhere, starting with me…the ringleader, nay the PINNACLE OF POWER, Marcus. Effing. Fenix.

            Give me a break.

            Also…why do you need to go to another site, create some blog or whatever…just to argue one on one. You, again, could have done that here. Who is full of bluster and crap now?

            “Then we shall see where your theories lead, and where they came from, and who is credible.”

            We can discuss theory here just fine. But bear one last thing in mind, something i’ve touched on before in our chat. Credibility is something you give away. I can’t take it from you. I can’t besmirch something when it’s rock solid. If you’re this entangled on regaining credibility, you may want to stop and ask yourself how you lost it in the first place.

            Take care, and please..switch to decaf. And also, get a different writer…someone who didn’t look to get into the comic book industry would be a start, based on your intro.

            Toodles.

          • DianaG2

            Yes, you are right. My bad on that one :-((

          • Kathryn A. O’Keefe

            Alrighty then, how about talking to the teenage girl about your arguments, because so far I’ve just been counting up the logical fallacies on both sides of the discussion, and currently, your count takes the cake, with…

            *Circular reasoning (Your conclusion is your stance, your stance is your conclusion. Basically, “Ice cream is the best dessert because ice cream is the best.”)
            *Ad hominem (Trying to discount a person’s argument or negate their input on a matter because of a personal trait, not their argument. “You have no say in this issue because you’re male.”)
            *Strawman (attacking an argument or position which wasn’t actually stated by the person you’re trying to argue with.)
            *Burden of Proof (saying that it’s on him to disprove your argument, when it’s actually on you to prove it.)
            *Bandwagon (a bunch of people do it, so therefore it’s okay.)
            *Tu quoque (answering criticism with criticism.)

            On the other hand, the only fallacies that Marcus has made thus far are minor cases of tu quoque, and POSSIBLY Texas Sharpshooting.
            ~*~*~*~*~*

            While not everything that is true can be proved, it is entirely possible to prove that abortion is wrong if we accept that humans have particular rights. If we deny that the right to life applies equally to all people, regardless of abilities, state, mental health, or age, then we deny that it is a right at all, and can therefore justify the killing of anyone. Since the pro-choice side argues that since a fetus isn’t able to survive on its own, it’s alright to kill it, logically, we should also be able to kill anyone who is on life-support, anyone under the age of about six (since before then, children rely quite heavily on their parents or other care-givers), or anyone with any number of mental illnesses or physical disabilities. The idea that a person is only a person once s/he’s reached a certain point in development makes person-hood a line in sand: something which can easily be moved to suit the purposes and desires of those in power. Stating, however, that a member of a particular species is a member of that species from the moment they are made and should be treated as such is not only scientifically accurate, but also will keep the line from moving. Also, the viability argument doesn’t take into account that as medical science progresses, the point of viability will continue to move closer to the point at which a child is conceived.

          • MarcusFenix

            I missed this earlier during the mass postings, but you’re right. I did throw a but of “you too!” in there…bad form on my part. It was close to some sharpshooting as well, but…I can’t be perfect all of the time. Excellent post otherwise, and solid rebuttal on the second half. :)

          • Kathryn A. O’Keefe

            I understand, but since I was going through her list of fallacies, I figured I should do the same as far as you were concerned, because 1) the article itself is about this sort of thing, and 2) it’s not fair to point out the errors on just one side of the debate, unless only one side is making errors. :)

          • MarcusFenix

            I’m perfectly fine with that. I’m a stickler for being fair. :)

          • MarcusFenix

            As an aside…I noticed you didn’t actually address my rebuttals at all. You breezed right past those, including the men supporting abortion bit, without pause.

            Also a fun fact…parting shots were used to cover retreats, or feigned retreats. Unless you’re going to actually stand and make a case for your arguments…a parting shot isn’t considered a good thing. :)

          • DianaG2

            We can only hope .

          • DianaG2

            Therefore it’s okay to sacrifice babies?

            Like Medea?

            Or like the ritual of the sun-god? I don’t know the name?

            Young boys’ hearts were pulled out?

          • DianaG2

            Well, you certainly ARE REVOLTING.

            ;-)

          • DianaG2

            Well, it wouldn’t matter anyway. None of that means it’s okay to kill a tiny human inside her or his mom.

          • DianaG2

            LOL, WTG, Adam.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            Yes, womb lynchers.
            It’s no more inflammatory than “anti choicer”

            You think silencing the opposition is the high road?
            Riiiiiight.

            The issue is the right to life of a child.

            Dangerous pregnancy?

            Pro lifers agree that abortion can only be justified if the mother’s life is at stake
            Albeit very effort should be made to save both lives

            I think you already know this

            Oh I see you were demonstrating what a straw man is

            Good job
            Thanks!

            Every law on the book is the imposition of someone’s mortality one another.

            Would you want me to ‘mind my own business’ if i was walking past you while someone was trying to murder or rape you?
            I didn’t think so.

          • MamaBear

            I have a question. Do they even teach how to have a civil debate about serious issues anymore? Do they teach logic? Do they teach the first amendment and free speech?
            Why do I ask? Calling for opposition to be “silenced.” Accusing calls for civility in discussion as “game playing.” And if you don’t have a logical argument, resorting to name calling and bullying. And this is widespread throughout society in many issues, often on both sides, not just pro-life/abortion.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            Most likely not,
            Judging by the banshees on mommyish they have no common courtesy nor are they interested in intellectual discourse let alone versed in good debate skills

          • MarcusFenix

            Yeah, but i crushed that crap just the same. ;)

          • PrincessJasmine4

            as always

          • Rebekah

            ” In other words, abortion is a painful personal decision, and the beliefs of anyone else do not give them any right to interfere with that decision. If you do not approve, that is your business; you can think whatever you like as long as you mind your own business.”

            So if I was witnessing a school shooting and had the power to stop it, would you say that I had “no right to interfere” with the shooter? If I was witnessing a rape and had the power to stop it, would you say that I had “no right to interfere” with the rapist? If I was witnessing a mother in India strangling her newborn baby girl (yes, this happens) would you say that I had “no right to interfere” with her? In each of these scenarios, the bodily autonomy of the shooter, the rapist, or the mother is not the issue. The issue is that an act of violence is being performed against someone else. It does not matter if the children in the school are unwanted. It does not matter if the woman being raped is unwanted. It does not matter if the newborn baby girl is unwanted. What matters is what is being done to them. The bottom line is that abortion is an act of violence against a human being who is powerless to do anything about it. What does abortion do? It tears an unborn child apart by suction. It rips the baby limb from limb with forceps. It forces cardiac arrest through the injection of toxic solution into the baby’s heart. Why do you have a problem with anyone trying to stop that from happening? Why are you against us defending the innocent from acts of violence?

            (Just in case you accuse me of using a straw man argument, the analogies I have made are all of acts of violence that are comparable to the act of abortion and account for far fewer deaths than abortion does every year. If you want me to explain how the analogies I used correlate to abortion, I will be more than happy to do so, and yes, I count the deaths of the babies aborted as the deaths of human beings. If abortion is not an act of violence, then I will be more than willing to retract my views about it. Just prove to me that abortions do not result in the death of a developing human being by the means I have described, or by other means as gruesome or more so.)

          • PrincessJasmine4

            It falls on deaf ears Rebekah
            These people are too evil to see what is right and what is wrong.
            These sickos say that pregnancy maims and kills and that giving birth is an act of violence.

            I’m not making this up

          • Adam Peters

            Awesome way to clarify the issue, Rebekah.

          • DianaG2

            Yes, that’s why we’re here minding our own business on LAN.

          • DianaG2

            Wow, I’m actually getting chills down my spine, this person is soo scary. I think I’ve interacted with her or him in other contexts as well.

            I feel really scared, just sitting here in front of the monitor.

          • PrincessJasmine4

            It’s advice for both pro aborts and pro lifers.

  • Rebekah

    Thanks for this article, Adam!

    • Adam Peters

      You’re welcome–thanks for your support :)

      • Adam Peters

        By the way, I have a new article that you may want to check out: http://liveactionnews.org/tucker-max-and-meghan-murphy-when-opposites-attract/

        • MarcusFenix

          sorry sir…but I reached the end of a rope with our lovely Aletha. I gave it a good go for civility, but at some point….you just have to fish or cut bait. Looks like I lost to my lesser nature, on this one…but it did take a while. ;)

  • MarcusFenix

    With regards to point 3, and some on point 4…

    As a person who regularly engages with pro-abortion supporters here, and elsewhere, ad hominems, insults, and backhand comments are typical (and at this point, expected). If you argue back in the same manner, it just makes both parties look like spoiled children with a filthy mouth. Asking for someone to be polite or to discuss the topic rationally gets you called a “tone troll” or “concern troll”, even if all you’re asking them to do is not act like a douche nozzle while talking.

    In the end…I’ve always found that insults and other such comments are the last bastion of someone who has no argument to make, can’t refute your own argument, or just wants to be a shrill harpy for its own sake. They’re not interested in engaging you intellectually, or to try and discuss something rationally (Heirophant2 below here does provide a rather easy example of this). Somehow, a full-bodied discussion somehow is beneath them, or they just know they’re right and you’re not, so there’s no discussion to be had. People who disagree with you and shout you down or insult you aren’t looking for common ground. They’re looking for capitulation, like an angry/whiny teenager who just wants you to leave them alone and let them do whatever they want, -because- they want to do it.

    I admit…it’s tough to do things on Adam’s list here consistently. Taking the high road, and trying to actually debate an issue rather than resort to second-grade name calling, is tougher than it sounds. I’m certainly not exempt from cursing people down, and sometimes it takes a conscious effort to not do so, especially when the other parties are all acting like spoiled children. I do, however, promise that it’s worth it. In the end, you know you can make a good argument without sinking to a more juvenile level, and watching someone come unhinged can be comical.

    Good article. :)

    • Adam Peters

      Thanks MarcusFenix. You’re right–it’s certainly not easy to maintain the sort of standards that we should aspire to, and I’m guilty of falling short myself from time to time.

      Part of the inspiration for this came from watching a video of Lila debating a pro-abortion advocate on The Sean Hannity Show back in April. She stayed eloquent and classy while taking care of business.

      • MarcusFenix

        As my second to last official post before vacation time…you’re welcome. :)

        • Adam Peters

          It’s an honor ;)

      • DianaG2

        She always does. It’s amazing!! I don’t know how she manages to do it.

    • DianaG2

      Many are post-abortive, as well. They have a lot of anger, grief and shame to deal with. The want to blame it on us.

      • MarcusFenix

        To some degree, I believe you’re right. I have no doubt that those kinds of situations are the case, and likely more than some would like to admit.

        Past that…I find that our culture is one where those emotions run high, and often with little or no venue to deal with them. We could get into a rather lengthy and detailed discussion about cultural problems, how we view people who are simply doing the right thing as almost heroic, how people deal with problems via medication rather than facing their troubles, only to create more problems because of the meds, and so on. I’ll spare everyone from such a long winded discussion, but I am sure you get the idea.

        Maybe one day, things will balance out…but i’m not terribly hopeful that sensibility is anywhere in the foreseeable future.

        • DianaG2

          Are you familiar with Peter Breggin, David Healy, Elliot Valenstein, and Robert Whitaker?

          Or, the following:

          mindfreedom.org
          psychrights.org
          breggin.org
          madinamerica.org

          ??

          • MarcusFenix

            Not familiar with the websites per se, but Breggin is one of the most outspoken critics of ADHD I can think of…which, incidentally, there was a story where the man who “created” ADD/ADHD admitted (on his deathbed, no less) that the “disease” was completely fabricated. I’ve long said, in my personal circles, that ADD/ADHD was mostly crap. Not that there aren’t people with issues, clearly…but that the sudden and far reaching idea that a 6 year old must be completely quiet and complacent at all times is absolute hogwash.

            The others, I don’t know as well, though I do recognize Valenstein as a noted psychologist. Please, feel free to enlighten me on the rest. :)

          • DianaG2

            Marcus I’m using an on-screen keyboard rite now — difficult 2 focus!

            thx 4 ur question. I’ll get back 2 u 2 moro when i am able 2use REAL KEYBOARD.

          • MarcusFenix

            It’s fine, take your time. Not in a rush. :)

          • DianaG2

            just did not want 2 rudely ignore you

            thx

            ik why disqus changed the pic? that’s the avatar of a relative?

            Sheesh

  • MarcusFenix

    Before a lovely vacation in the country for about a week (and no cell phones, thank god), I hope everyone, even those who disagree with me, has a safe Thanksgiving. Be well, friends.

  • MamaBear

    Excellent article. One thing we need to realize, that may in fact help find common ground, is it is not always absolutely necessary to prove an embryo already human. For many people, fence sitters to use our friend Jasmine’s term, it may even be enough to admit the embryo is becoming human to make them see abortion is wrong. Here is a quote from Bonhoeffer.
    “Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And this is nothing but murder.”