After Hours 'Repeal the 8th' thread ban

Outlaw Pete

I'd like to appeal a thread ban from the 'Repeal the 8th' AH thread. I've contacted the relevant mod but he is adamant that the action was warranted (and said that his fellow mods agree). During our exchange I asked him which of my posts it was that he felt amounted to "flaming / baiting" (which he felt warranted my permanent banning from the thread) and was told:

Nicolas Cage wrote:

I don't think you quite realise how your posting style rubs people up the wrong way.

Aside from describing abortions under some conditions as eugenics, repeatedly describing surgical abortion incorrectly in the context of medicinal aborbiot and dismissing the concept of bodily autonomy as nonsense, if I had to point to a single part of your posting, it would be this:

A healthy woman (who is pregnant from consensual sex) that would choose to have her healthy preborn baby's heartbeat stilled, is not a real woman to me, no.

Also, any man that would support a woman stilling his child's heartbeat under the same circumstances, ain't no man to me either.

You are attempting to dehumanise a large swath of people using your opinion. Pretty darn insulting.

Reaction to that post alone resulted in the types of replies that would normally result in cards and bans (I deleted a few). People are meant to stand over their posts and move on. But when somebody wind them up with such insulting and dismissive posts as yours, why should they be the ones being reprimanded? Why not reprimand the instigator and cut off the source of the ugliness of this 'debate'?

In future, reconsider your posting style. If in doubt, refer to the boards wide "don't be a dick" rule.

Regards,
NC

So as you can see, Nic cited 4 different aspects of my posting on the thread which he felt justified the thread ban and if I could, I'd like to make a few brief comments on each in response:


1 - I spoke about Eugenics.

Yes, in a post explaining why it is that I only show support for abortions that are carried out for medical reasons and therapeutic purposes, I cited the high abortion rate of prenates diagnosed with Down Syndrome. In the UK, for example, 90% of pregnancies are terminated after a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. This to me is clear eugenic behavior. However, even if I am wrong, I fail to see why this view is being categorized as baiting or flaming. Many share it.


2 - It's said that I was "describing surgical abortion incorrectly in the context of medicinal abortions".

I can only presume Nic meant 'medical' abortions with the above. In which case, he's misread the intention of my post as I was not speaking in the context of medical abortions at all. Hence my referencing Planned Parenthood's sale of body parts right after describing the surgical abortion.


3 - That I was "dismissing the concept of bodily autonomy".

This is the oddest reason of all. Surely in a debate where body autonomy is so often used as one of the central arguments, a user disagreeing with the logic behind it can't be seen as flaming and baiting . I mean, it's not as if I just came onto the thread and said something like 'Ah body automony me bollox' and legged it. On the contrary, as the post which Nic linked to shows, I went to great lengths to try and explain just why it is that I hold the view I do with regards to body automony.


4 - Lastly, Nic cites a post where I expressed the view that a healthy woman, pregnant from consensual sex, that would still yet choose to abort a healthy baby, was not a 'real' woman to me (and that any man that would support a woman doing so, in the same circumstances , would be no man to me either).

Well, the reason I feel it would be inaccurate to refer to this as baiting / flaming (or something which should be seen as warranting a thread ban) is because the prochoice side of the debate had no problem at all making judgement calls of their own on precisely what it was that they felt a prolifer's views said about them as people. For example, it was said that my views showed I didn't care about disabled kids (better not tell my employer, it's my job to) or abused children, that my opinions (especially with regards to body autonomy) showed I must harbour misogynistic thinking and that my real goal is not to prevent non-medically necessary abortions at all, but in fact, to control women.

Seems to me, for whatever reason, one side of that debate is being held to a much higher standard of posting than the other and I feel it unfair.


Anyway, I'd appreciate it if a CMod would take a look over it at some stage and if the PMs myself and the mod exchanged are needed, let me know and I'll forward them on.

Cheers.

Beasty

Moving this to Help Desk as it's not disputing a forum ban or card.

I'll ask the CMods to head over there to review this for you

Outlaw Pete

Beasty, any chance you could give the relevant Cmods another nudge.

It's been over three weeks now.

Beasty

Outlaw Pete. Full disclosure here - I thought I had passed this on to the CMods when I moved it here, but checking back I didn't. I did ask them to have a look after your bump although that request ended up at the bottom of a page in the relevant CMods thread and looks like it has been missed. I've just given them a nudge though after seeing your comments in the AH thread. Apologies that this has slipped through the net to date

Outlaw Pete

No bother, Beasty, thanks. Appreciate it.

Tokyo

Unfortunately it looks like you since breached your thread ban by posting in the latest incarnation of the thread. Ban upheld.

Tokyo

Okay Outlaw Pete,

after speaking with the AH mods, it looks like they've already lifted your forum ban, in recognition of the fact that you may have mistakenly posted in the latest reincarnation of the 'Repeal the 8th' thread. However, I took a look over their reasoning for applying the thread ban to begin with, and I agree with their take on things - that your posts were needlessly crass and baiting other users. I appreciate that it's an emotive topic, but you can get your point across without posting in that fashion. I see no reason to go against the AH mods decision on this one.