If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

[excreationist]

I thought footage would be better evidence than stories.

Why would you think that trashy images with no demonstrable context would be better evidence than something like real evidence and statistics and studies and science and stuff?
Tom

Because that is how professional Christians and anyone who they have corrupted and anyone else who corrupts as they do encourage people to "reason" for themselves, with images and emotions rather than actual documentation.

Post #361 is actual documentation

No, it's not. The fact is that "psychosocial" can mean a lot of things, especially in Victoria in 2011.

Psychosocial indictions only means that the mother and foetus are physically ok.

It also doesn't document those images to that event, which is the actual "goalpost" here.

Well there is a cartoon:

Are you saying what this cartoon shows never ever happens?

The proof is in actually telling a story that starts with "a woman decided to get an abortion because she felt like it" and ends with "and this picture is the result of that act", wherein the event happened as a result of the availability of legal abortion clinics.

Do you think what is shown in this cartoon actually happens?

If things that are shown in the cartoons actually happen then it means footage of it is a lot more plausible.

There is a second matter beyond that which will compare the results and world of legal restrictions on abortion, just so you aren't unwarned that the princess is still in another castle.

I think the cartoons show what can happen in Western countries but the old videos could be from third world countries, etc.

 

[excreationist]

Before you posted the video from her I had a week earlier watched another anti-abortion video of hers on you tube, and this showed that she was a fanatic with little interest in the truth.

It says Kathi Aultman is a "former abortion doctor". What did she say that was untrue?

 

[excreationist]

You might not believe Dr Jo when she talks about a 37 week pregnancy being aborted when the mother and foetus were physically healthy but she is actually against all forms of abortion - here she gets a crowd of about 10,000 to say that they are committed to "ending abortion in this country". And "are we ever going to vote Labor again if they pass this bill?" The crowd replies "no". That's like people voting for Trump only because of his alledged abortion stance.

The video also talks about amendments Dr Jo wants made. As a professor of Law she's pretty qualified in legalese. An amendment (at 12:00) is to try and stop abortions that are done solely for the parents not being happy with the gender. Do people here think it is fine to have an abortion solely because you're unhappy with the gender?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

#1 could be foreign, the lack of a biohazard bag in a third world location would not surprise me at all. Or it could simply be a stillbirth. And we have no indication that it even happened in a medical context.

And if it's unscrupulous individuals why document it? But even a third world hospital will understand the problem with tape measures, even if they are using repurposed equipment they'll use something that can be wiped down with alcohol rather than something that you can't hope to sterilize.

It could be in a morgue, measuring a fetus removed from a corpse for all we know.

They do have tape measures in morgues.

Good point. There's also a bunch of stuff in the upper right, again not something you will find in a OR.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This confirms what I was saying about abortion allowed up until birth:

and I want to make the point too in New South Wales that you can have late term abortion right up until your due date

The news host and a former prime minister confirmed that and they would know since the former PM actually created laws and this abortion law is a kind of law. So my point was what the law allows, not about what morality those people might have.

And, again, you don't get it about "until birth" being about considering it a medical decision. Doesn't mean they do third trimester abortions for no reason.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

You might not believe Dr Jo when she talks about a 37 week pregnancy being aborted when the mother and foetus were physically healthy but she is actually against all forms of abortion - here she gets a crowd of about 10,000 to say that they are committed to "ending abortion in this country". And "are we ever going to vote Labor again if they pass this bill?" The crowd replies "no". That's like people voting for Trump only because of his alledged abortion stance.

The video also talks about amendments Dr Jo wants made. As a professor of Law she's pretty qualified in legalese. An amendment (at 12:00) is to try and stop abortions that are done solely for the parents not being happy with the gender. Do people here think it is fine to have an abortion solely because you're unhappy with the gender?

Labor supporters outnumber these rejects a 1000 to one, and even most LNP supporters are not anti-abortion. Their total anti-abortion stance is totally out of step with 90% of Australians, so they are delusional to think they can get any traction with their primitive religious inspired ideas.
When I say religious ideas, that refers to their false religious beliefs, which are opposed by what the Bible actually says. God and the Bible support abortion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2015 is about 20 years after the videos I provided and they're the same group of liars? Also PP would have slick videos - these ones are often very amateur (but inconsistent).

You have already said the DVD is old.

Planned Parenthood from 2015 is different from this unknown collection of images/footage from the 1980s or 1990s. The PP incident has a lot of evidence for fraud. All I'm looking for is a single mention that any abortion photos/footage from the 1980s or 1990s used fake foetuses.

Goalposts! Note that it could be stillbirths, not constructs.

So you can't find a SINGLE website/post that confirms your theory? Note I was the one that provided that link about PP 2015. So are you saying they found some stillbirths and then chopped some of them up to make them look like an abortion? (because some of the footage involves chopped up things). Sounds like a big conspiracy to me - there would need to be a lot of people "in on it".

Who says they chopped up stillbirths? We were addressing the intact ones, you can't tell what a chopped up mess was.

They are the ones claiming the "evidence" they provide is real without having met the standard for credible evidence for anything.

I have watched people make the most realistic fakes of all sorts of stuff with little more than sugar and paint.

Note there are dozens of different styles of footage/images, and different kinds of abortions and body colour. Do you think the same team made them all or is it from lots of different teams? If it was the same team that means that some of the time they took still photos and other times they use worse quality VHS, etc. Note that the footage could be from overseas where abortion is less professional. Also the DVD I got the footage from was free. If they used fakes surely it would cost some money.

What you have shown simply look like dead color.

I'll show you how much variation there is just in the type of colour - from a fairly consistent colour in the first to the blotchy colour of the second, etc.

Spoiler

View attachment 50464View attachment 50465View attachment 50466View attachment 50467

And that's supposed to prove something other than that you should have put spoiler tags? I see no reason to think unnatural death from those pictures.

For me to prove my side to your satisfaction it might require me to prove that all of the dozens of abortion photos/videos are real. For you all you need to do is prove a single photo/video from the 1980s or 1990s is not a real foetus. But by proof I mean a mention of it on the internet, not just your own expert opinion.

The burden is upon the side making the claim. There's no question there are a decent number of fakes, thus the burden is on proving any given image is real. And is of what they say it is. I suspect #1 is simply a stillbirth.

"No question"? Based solely on your opinions without a single shred of hard evidence (from the internet)? If it was faked why didn't they just stop at one or two examples? They seem to be from many different sites. And if they went to all of this trouble why wasn't it sold and marketed much? It didn't even have its own dedicated video - it was just part of a long seminar in lots of different topics like freemasons, etc.

Because they're pretending there's a lot of it. Thus many are needed.

"And is of what they say it is"
The footage is just footage/pictures set to music. There is the implication these are abortions though the start shows a healthy foetus in the womb.
Even the hands are inconsistent - sometimes they have gloves, sometimes they don't. Do you seriously think the team said to themselves "let's take off the gloves for these examples so there is more variation and to make it seem more realistic"?

Keyword "implication". In other words, they aren't even claiming it, just leading you to believe it. That means it almost certainly is not. This is a standard technique--set it up so the viewer jumps to a false conclusion. Since they never actually state it you can't point to a lie.

And you persist in assuming there's only one incident. This looks awfully like they simply gathered images that they could pretend were abortions.

So this is about proving that "fakes" are real.... seems like a similar category where people believe the moon landing videos and photos are "fakes".
So in the moon landing example "the burden is on proving any given image is real". I know that sounds like an exaggeration but it still seems like a similar category to me. Also people who believe the moon landing photos are faked would use their own reasoning rather than refer to other websites, etc.

Do we have a bunch of fake moon landing photos?

And it's simply not possible for it to have been faked, anyway--we simply did not have the technology to fake it at the time. Besides, Moscow would have been able to figure it out of we were faking it and they would have said something. It's not like you can keep the general nature of what you're doing in space secret. What are the specs of the NRO birds? We don't know--but we know they exist. We would much prefer that Moscow and Beijing not know the orbits, but we have no way to hide them. Same as we know the orbits of their birds.

Various things that we couldn't fake with the technology of the time:

1) Movement in reduced gravity. Slow motion does not work because it makes the rest of the body look wrong. You want a reduced gravity shot that isn't an obvious fake, you do it in such an environment. We can fake that in the vomit comet but that burns altitude rapidly, you can't do it for very long. You can't seamlessly patch pieces together, thus any single shot that exceeds the maximum for the vomit comet is actually shot in an environment with no more gravity than it portrays.

2) The dust plume of the lunar rover. Can't fake that, it needs an actual vacuum chamber. You could use one on Earth, but how? Your stage set is vastly bigger than the biggest vacuum chamber in existence--and note that it must be a free span, look around for the largest free spans on Earth and you'll find they're not all that big. And we built something like that without Moscow noticing?

3) The light on the lunar surface. If the light source was nearby we would see the light diverging (look at the shadows), but we don't. Thus the light source must be very far away--and thus it must be very, very bright. We see nothing of the sort even now. And note that there's no scattering from a window--it's in the vacuum chamber. Yet it's also far away. That chamber must be huge! (Ignore the different light angles on the ground--all that proves is the ground isn't flat.)

Look how abysmally Hollywood fares in depicting low gravity environments even now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW I think the message of the video is "this is what early babies or foetuses look like" rather than only just being about aborted foetuses. It begins with foetuses and fertilised eggs in the womb. If it shows any naturally stillborn babies I don't think it is being misleading. Well that's my opinion.

So what does that accomplish? Nothing. You'll find images in any textbook on fetal development, it's not a secret.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She is a professor of Law and would be familiar with the idea of "truth". i.e. what's good evidence, etc. In post #518 a former PM also agrees that in NSW "you can have late term abortion right up until your due date" and he would also be an expert in what the law is.
I don't think you need to be a medical expert to determine whether a foetus was killed and how many weeks a long it was and whether is was for psychosocial reasons only. Though those statistics would have been compiled by medical experts.

A professor of law is not a person I would select for being good at the concept of truth.

 

[TomC]

She is a professor of Law and would be familiar with the idea of "truth". i.e. what's good evidence, etc. In post #518 a former PM also agrees that in NSW "you can have late term abortion right up until your due date" and he would also be an expert in what the law is.
I don't think you need to be a medical expert to determine whether a foetus was killed and how many weeks a long it was and whether is was for psychosocial reasons only. Though those statistics would have been compiled by medical experts.

A professor of law is not a person I would select for being good at the concept of truth.

Know how to tell if a lawyer is lying?
Their lips move.


Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Psychosocial indictions only means that the mother and foetus are physically ok.

No. You still haven't addressed the issue of thalidomide. Where on that list does it go?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You might not believe Dr Jo when she talks about a 37 week pregnancy being aborted when the mother and foetus were physically healthy but she is actually against all forms of abortion - here she gets a crowd of about 10,000 to say that they are committed to "ending abortion in this country". And "are we ever going to vote Labor again if they pass this bill?" The crowd replies "no". That's like people voting for Trump only because of his alledged abortion stance.

And this is supposed to be evidence of anything?

We are very used to deceptions being committed by the pro-punishment community. We are already seeing the result of reducing abortions: dead women.

Consider: ectopic pregnancy caught early enough: simple treatment: chemical abortion. Deny this and the only approach is surgical and almost certainly costs her half of her fertility. And the embryo still dies.

 

[TomC]

Consider: ectopic pregnancy caught early enough: simple treatment: chemical abortion. Deny this and the only approach is surgical and almost certainly costs her half of her fertility. And the embryo still dies.

That's what happened to my mom. But it was back in the 50s, surgical removal of her fallopian tube was the only way to save her from a long ugly death.
This was a big crisis for my parents. They really really wanted a big Catholic family. Her fertility problems just doubled. The doctors explained that if they wanted a flock of kids they had better start adopting, because it probably wouldn't happen the old fashioned way. So they did.
Tom

ETA ~Who are the dumbass politicians who think that an ectopic fetus should be reimplanted further down? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on the subject. Why doesn't God just resurrect them or something? ~

 

[excreationist]

So you can't find a SINGLE website/post that confirms your theory? Note I was the one that provided that link about PP 2015. So are you saying they found some stillbirths and then chopped some of them up to make them look like an abortion? (because some of the footage involves chopped up things). Sounds like a big conspiracy to me - there would need to be a lot of people "in on it".

Who says they chopped up stillbirths? We were addressing the intact ones, you can't tell what a chopped up mess was.

Some of it shows little arms and hands or pieces of heads. Anyway I'm not getting anywhere even though I showed there were 125 references to the PP 2015 issue but everyone here has provided zero references to those dozens of photos/videos. No one has even provided a single messageboard post saying it was fake - where other people believe it is fake even without evidence. I think in the past people would just assume those were real foetuses rather than the over the top skepticism here.
So I give up trying to convince you that at least some of the footage/photos involve actual abortions or dead foetuses.

 

[Jarhyn]

So I give up trying to convince you that at least some of the footage/photos involve actual abortions or dead foetuses.

This statement means you didn't even understand what you failed to convince us of.

Nobody here is denying some of those images might be dead fetuses. Some probably are.

We are doubting how those fetuses died, when they died, and why they died.

Fetuses dead from stillbirth are not valid; they did not happen because their parents loved them so they cannot be the face of "consequences of unloving parents".

Fetuses from abortions that were medically necessary are not valid; they are the tragic consequences of undetected or undetectable maladies.

Fetuses from abortions resulting from necessity following traumatic abuse are not valid.

Only "abortions that are the consequences of legal and well regulated abortion in the United states performed for convenience or personal indifference to parenthood by the mother" are even valid to claim in anti-abortion rhetoric, and we already discussed who is generally responsible for those.

And if even one of those images they show is of that? If they want to claim that is a valid argument, does that mean the existence of countless CSEM images that I have thankfully never seen but tragically we all know exist are a valid argument FOR abortion, since most of those snatched into that hellscape come from the foster system?

And even then, you lack the weight of statistics. Let's say ONE abortion in the last year resulted in some scene like in their shock troll images...

That's not sufficient to form a representative face of abortion, especially not of late term abortions, because almost all of them are still going to be medically necessary and the images of dead adult women and the mere text-based reality of sexually exploited children put the lie to it.

THIS is how the images are "fake".

 

[excreationist]

So I give up trying to convince you that at least some of the footage/photos involve actual abortions or dead foetuses.

This statement means you didn't even understand what you failed to convince us of.

Nobody here is denying some of those images might be dead fetuses. Some probably are.

You said "I have watched people make the most realistic fakes of all sorts of stuff with little more than sugar and paint" which suggests you were saying you thought there was a strong chance that some of the footage could involve realistic fakes.

We are doubting how those fetuses died, when they died, and why they died.

What about this cartoon:

It shows the foetus dying due to being pulled apart with a clamp. Do you think foetuses ever die in that way? If so then it looks like some of the old footage shows similar procedures.
Also what about this video talking about a fetus being injected in the heart with potassium chloride:

Do you think that ever happens?
Sorry if you've replied to that already but could you reply again?

Fetuses from abortions that were medically necessary are not valid; they are the tragic consequences of undetected or undetectable maladies.

Fetuses from abortions resulting from necessity following traumatic abuse are not valid.

It is showing what abortions look like. I thought abortions that are necessary or not necessary look the same.

Only "abortions that are the consequences of legal and well regulated abortion in the United states performed for convenience or personal indifference to parenthood by the mother" are even valid to claim in anti-abortion rhetoric, and we already discussed who is generally responsible for those.

I think footage of third world abortions isn't dishonest. No one claimed that this was US footage. BTW sometimes they use their bare hands to hold the foetuses which seems a bit odd if they were pretending to be from the US.

THIS is how the images are "fake".

Well could you respond to those questions about two types of foetus death?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think footage of third world abortions isn't dishonest.

At this point nobody is asking you what you think is honest.

Clearly you do not have a good handle on that. You are an "unreliable narrator" on that front.

This is what we are trying to impart: that you cannot just switch sources at this point, you have to switch your entire model for finding and accepting sources.

We have had 2-3 threads now where the entire thread subject is "@excreationist reposts wild shit takes on subjects from YouTube."

 

[excreationist]

I think footage of third world abortions isn't dishonest.

At this point nobody is asking you what you think is honest.

Clearly you do not have a good handle on that. You are an "unreliable narrator" on that front.

This is what we are trying to impart: that you cannot just switch sources at this point, you have to switch your entire model for finding and accepting sources.

We have had 2-3 threads now where the entire thread subject is "@excreationist reposts wild shit takes on subjects from YouTube."

Could you please respond to what I asked about those cartoons? Were the questions too difficult for you?

you cannot just switch sources at this point

I think it is relevant. You're disputing that abortions are shown in the footage and I'd like to know what kinds of abortions you think are done or are never done. This thread was originally about abortions in general, not that footage. Those cartoons show what abortions might be done and I want to know if you think they are also "fake".
Like I said earlier I gave up on trying argue for that old footage.

reposts wild shit takes on subjects from YouTube

So that is your response to the cartoons? You don't want to say whether or not they're made up? Maybe you're worried you don't have a good argument for it so you're obviously trying to dodge the subject by just saying "reposts wild shit takes" and "you cannot just switch sources at this point". Sorry I'm being a bit argumentative but I really want you to respond to those two cartoons properly - i.e. say whether you think they're fake, etc. (and reply to my response)

 

[Jarhyn]

Could you please respond to what I asked about those cartoons? Were the questions too difficult for you?

No, I just don't really care about what you want at this point. I'm not done with the fact that you won't own up to how or why the images are dishonest. It's a fucking cartoon and a cartoon is not what we were discussing. Trying to change the subject to cartoons is yet another dishonest "professional Christian" tactic.

You can just stop all the bullshit.

You're disputing that abortions are shown in the footage

No, I told you exactly what we were disputing:

Nobody here is denying some of those images might be dead fetuses. Some probably are.... We are doubting how those fetuses died, when they died, and why they died.

The reason you cannot just switch sources at this point to discuss yet another stupid fucking YouTube video has been addressed: YouTube is not a valid source of arguments, especially from where you find them.

You are still seeking news inside the ecosystem of people who teach you wrong as a joke, where the punchline is you giving them the reigns of your own autonomy in service of Gilead on earth.

So that is your response to the cartoons? You don't want to say whether or not they're made up?

I don't give a shit. I will NEVER be clocking on shitass propaganda YouTube links and videos, and every time someone tries to put one in front of me, the only effect is that I respect them less.

Please quit trying to change the subject to some shitass cartoons or whatever, and address the following directly:

We are doubting how those fetuses died, when they died, and why they died.

Fetuses dead from stillbirth are not valid; they did not happen because their parents loved them so they cannot be the face of "consequences of unloving parents".

Fetuses from abortions that were medically necessary are not valid; they are the tragic consequences of undetected or undetectable maladies.

Fetuses from abortions resulting from necessity following traumatic abuse are not valid.

Only "abortions that are the consequences of legal and well regulated abortion in the United states performed for convenience or personal indifference to parenthood by the mother" are even valid to claim in anti-abortion rhetoric, and we already discussed who is generally responsible for those.

There are reasons for the standards of evidence that are being enforced here.

People protesting the legality of abortion in a country on the basis of the artifacts of its consequence have no basis if they claim this with images of third world countries and still births, because those are not representative of the reality they argue against continuing.

The fact that they have no such images is testimony to the rarity of such events, and the effectiveness of current infrastructure in its prevention.

There are many, many pictures of dead women, however, thanks to measures that the people holding those signs push for.

Condemnation of actions to deliver a stillbirth have, in many well publicized stories, lead to the deaths of women; in balance, it puts the lie to the images.

We have, Loren, I, Others, those who "liked" those posts, together have repeatedly asked you to own up to the fact that these are widely regarded as highly deceptive acts, and to just accept whatever budding awareness is there that your sources lead you astray, and you cannot continue as you were before.

 

[excreationist]

@Jarhyn
So you complain a lot about my post but not give a straight answer about whether you think the cartoons are based on reality - or are they made up? By made up I mean foetuses never get potassium chloride injections or are pulled to bits with a clamp.

What would it take for you to answer what I'm asking about the cartoons? Do I need to start a new thread about it? Something being biassed or unprofessional doesn't prove that the details (potassium chloride injections, etc) are made up.

I'm not done with the fact that you won't own up to how or why the images are dishonest

I said I give up about it. It seems like you also give up about the cartoons even though you haven't had a serious response to it (and talk about potassium chloride injections, etc)