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

[Jarhyn]

can go on and on and on complaining about my post but not

It's not about "can't", it's about "won't".

You have not earned the high respect I would need for someone to click on a link to a video, let alone one on YouTube, containing politically charged claims of any kind.

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?

Literally nothing in the universe will free you from the responsibilities you have to own up to the dishonesty in the views you reposted and the arguments you used to back them.

You have exhausted your good graces in being told that people like Chris and these Gilead motherfuckers with the false claims using shock images.

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)

It wasn't about the images themselves or the fact they are not appropriate, but the reason why you have lost any trust, any right in my mind to invite me to click a YouTube link.

As long as you keep pulling buckets of piss up from the endless ocean of piss that is shit takes on YouTube, you will keep getting the same response.

You could just google "debunking ______ abortion" with whatever claim you want, and you will get most of the responses you would from us, without aggravating us with the PRATT.

Serious responses to YouTube video claims include the ever-prescient "quit sourcing science claims from YouTube and Gilead".

 

[excreationist]

can go on and on and on complaining about my post but not

It's not about "can't", it's about "won't".

You have not earned the high respect I would need for someone to click on a link to a video, let alone one on YouTube, containing politically charged claims of any kind.

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?

Literally nothing in the universe will free you from the responsibilities you have to own up to the dishonesty in the views you reposted and the arguments you used to back them.

You have exhausted your good graces in being told that people like Chris and these Gilead motherfuckers with the false claims using shock images.

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)

It wasn't about the images themselves or the fact they are not appropriate, but the reason why you have lost any trust, any right in my mind to invite me to click a YouTube link.

As long as you keep pulling buckets of piss up from the endless ocean of piss that is shit takes on YouTube, you will keep getting the same response.

You could just google "debunking ______ abortion" with whatever claim you want, and you will get most of the responses you would from us, without aggravating us with the PRATT.

Serious responses to YouTube video claims include the ever-prescient "quit sourcing science claims from YouTube and Gilead".

So you refuse to watch part of videos that each go for about a minute? (I've got them to start at the relevant part) Then you won't allow me to give up on the old footage topic? ("Literally nothing in the universe will free you from the responsibilities") If you're able to watch that old footage you should be able to watch cartoons. I guess you need an excuse to avoid responding to my questions about the cartoons.

I can't believe your counter-argument to those two cartoons is "You have not earned the high respect I would need for someone to click on a link to a video" and "you have lost any trust, any right in my mind to invite me to click a YouTube link".

I can't believe it!

Well it seems you can still respond without watching the videos - and say whether abortions ever involve pulling apart a foetus with a clamp in order to get it out - or if late term abortions can involve potassium chloride injections to the heart and then making the woman deliver a stillborn baby.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

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

All cartoons are made up; that is a basic function of them. You can't simply post a video cartoon and claim it is a depiction of a real event without actual independent evidence.

 

[excreationist]

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

All cartoons are made up; that is a basic function of them. You can't simply post a video cartoon and claim it is a depiction of a real event without actual independent evidence.

Ok what about this as evidence:

Foeticide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In abortions after 20 weeks, an injection of digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetal heart to stop the fetal heart can be used to achieve foeticide

For "Dilation and evacuation"

Dilation and Evacuation: Procedure, Indications & Recovery

Dilation and evacuation is a surgical procedure involving cervical dilation and uterine evacuation, usually performed for second-trimester pregnancy management.

www.medicoverhospitals.in

As far as whether the foetus is conscious at the time:

The question of fetal consciousness during a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure is complex and depends on neurological development. Scientific research suggests that fetal consciousness requires a developed cerebral cortex and functional neural connections, which typically form later in pregnancy.
During the second trimester, when D&E procedures are performed, the fetal brain is still developing, and there is no conclusive evidence that the fetus experiences consciousness or pain in the way a fully developed human does. Some studies indicate that pain perception may require cortical processing, which is not fully developed until after 24 weeks of gestation.

Also:

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?

?
@Jarhyn
That first part is also relevant to the cartoons you were unable to watch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're coming at this backwards. It's a lot easier to make propaganda garbage than it is to debunk it. Thus there will always be undebunked propaganda. Plenty of it has been found to be garbage, this leaves the burden of proof with the side claiming it's real. And not only have they provided no such evidence, but how you describe it is a classic means of deception.

 

[excreationist]

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.

You're coming at this backwards. It's a lot easier to make propaganda garbage than it is to debunk it.

So it's "a lot easier" to make dozens of different videos and pictures than to find at least one critical mention of it on the internet? (like I said PP 2015 has 125 references)

Thus there will always be undebunked propaganda. Plenty of it has been found to be garbage,

People in this thread believe it is garbage but where are the other mentions of it? I think that up until now other people just assumed it involved real foetuses and at least some abortion. I could research what other people have commented on about footage from the 1980s and 1990s but I guess that wouldn't sway you at all anyway.

this leaves the burden of proof with the side claiming it's real. And not only have they provided no such evidence, but how you describe it is a classic means of deception.

What about what I said in post #564? That's what I want to discuss now since the footage debate is going nowhere on my side. The burden (of proof) is too great.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

@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.

You have already shown that you fall for the emotional argument that doesn't actually prove anything at all. I doubt anyone on here is qualified to actually address what happens, and just because something is gruesome doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

@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.

You have already shown that you fall for the emotional argument that doesn't actually prove anything at all. I doubt anyone on here is qualified to actually address what happens, and just because something is gruesome doesn't make it wrong.

Like, I don't know how to be any clearer that I'm just not interested in discussing cartoons published by activists known for blatant lying.

I really hate to get close to the "poisoned well" thing, but GDI... Sometimes you gotta just learn not to buy your copper from old El Nasir.

 

[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.

You have already shown that you fall for the emotional argument that doesn't actually prove anything at all.

I implied that it is wrong to abort a 37 week old foetus when the mother and foetus are physically healthy. Other people insisted that never happens - implying that they also think it would be wrong.

I doubt anyone on here is qualified to actually address what happens,

So people can't find out whether potassium chloride injections or clamps are used? People seem to think they're experts when looking at that old footage when they believe it couldn't be genuine. But anyway enough about the old footage - the burden of proof is far too much especially considering there are dozens of photos and videos to try and prove are real.

and just because something is gruesome doesn't make it wrong.

Well people were trying as much as possible to deny that the gruesome things shown in the videos were real (e.g. "I have watched people make the most realistic fakes of all sorts of stuff with little more than sugar and paint"). And deny or ignore the gruesome things in the cartoons (and refuse to watch them) rather than believe they could be based on reality. Maybe people think that things being gruesome makes them wrong. I can't see any other reason to deny it so much.
So an objection is that those sources were biased and anti-abortion. But I have also provided better sources:
See post #564
e.g.
That seems to be from a pro-abortion source:
It even uses the euphemism "a surgical procedure to remove tissue from the uterus"

Dilation and Evacuation: Procedure, Indications & Recovery

Dilation and evacuation is a surgical procedure involving cervical dilation and uterine evacuation, usually performed for second-trimester pregnancy management.

www.medicoverhospitals.in

That confirms one of the cartoons. In post #564 there is also evidence that the foetus is alive when pulled out in pieces, like the cartoon shows.

So that is gruesome I guess. But people will keep on denying that it could happen. Why? Perhaps they think is it wrong for something to be gruesome. That's the only reason I can think of.

 

[excreationist]

Like, I don't know how to be any clearer that I'm just not interested in discussing cartoons published by activists known for blatant lying.

I really hate to get close to the "poisoned well" thing, but GDI... Sometimes you gotta just learn not to buy your copper from old El Nasir.

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute? I guess you're not Professor Dave material. But what about post #564?

 

[Jarhyn]

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute?

Im saying you debunked it yourself when you posted 20 other YouTube videos that are full of shit.

If you want to understand whether your cartoon is accurate or not, look at the URL. If it says "YouTube" and is not from a medical textbook or instruction on the subject, it's not likely to be accurate. Even if it is and is being talked about by those scientifically illiterate chucklefucks, you still won't be able to walk away with an accurate picture for the spin.

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

 

[TomC]

So that is gruesome I guess. But people will keep on denying that it could happen. Why? Perhaps they think is it wrong for something to be gruesome. That's the only reason I can think of.

Perhaps, because you are Australian and as you said "sometimes don't think too clearly", you are unaware of the scope of the disaster going on here in the USA.

As much as I disapprove of abortion used as birth control for the irresponsible and/or abusive sex, far more horrifying problems are being caused by state legislatures.

They're using people's lives and health as a political football to keep their grip on wealth and power. I'd bet that if you tried, you could easily find many more reports of women who's lives and health were trashed because a medical facility was not sure if the procedure needed was legal by local standards.

Even before the current political crisis, the numbers of late term abortion without a health disaster was infinitesimal compared to the number of women tragically affected by pregnancy gone awry.

No amount of gruesome imagery or lawyers claiming expertise will change that. And I wish there were ways to quantify the number of women driven to unlicensed, unregulated, abortionists by this political mess!
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

So that is gruesome I guess. But people will keep on denying that it could happen. Why? Perhaps they think is it wrong for something to be gruesome. That's the only reason I can think of.

Perhaps, because you are Australian and as you said "sometimes don't think too clearly", you are unaware of the scope of the disaster going on here in the USA.

As much as I disapprove of abortion used as birth control for the irresponsible and/or abusive sex, far more horrifying problems are being caused by state legislatures.

They're using people's lives and health as a political football to keep their grip on wealth and power. I'd bet that if you tried, you could easily find many more reports of women who's lives and health were trashed because a medical facility was not sure if the procedure needed was legal by local standards.

Even before the current political crisis, the numbers of late term abortion without a health disaster was infinitesimal compared to the number of women tragically affected by pregnancy gone awry.

No amount of gruesome imagery or lawyers claiming expertise will change that. And I wish there were ways to quantify the number of women driven to unlicensed, unregulated, abortionists by this political mess!
Tom

Absolutely spot on.

The images are fake because they do not speak to the reality of late term abortions in scientifically supported medical environments.

Of course it could happen.

I described ways in which it almost certainly did/does/will happen.

The infrequency of these, their existence of a remnant of a remnant that we are still vigilant to keep things from ever getting to that point, makes them a lie... And destroys the credibility of the sources and mechanisms that bring such claims to people.

There's a reason why medical science requires peer review and is open to academic criticism.

 

[excreationist]

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute?

Im saying you debunked it yourself when you posted 20 other YouTube videos that are full of shit.

I posted 2 YouTube videos about cartoons and some videos of Dr Jo. The old footage is a single YouTube video which I uploaded myself. There were not 20 YouTube videos but I guess it's ok to be inaccurate because it is you. (I consider a collection of photos and footage to be a single YouTube video). Unless you're talking about the Dr Chris videos.

If you want to understand whether your cartoon is accurate or not, look at the URL. If it says "YouTube" and is not from a medical textbook or instruction on the subject, it's not likely to be accurate. Even if it is and is being talked about by those scientifically illiterate chucklefucks, you still won't be able to walk away with an accurate picture for the spin.

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

Post #564 does NOT mention YouTube. It seems to be from a pro-abortion site because it uses the euphemism "a surgical procedure to remove tissue from the uterus". Here is the illustration again:

Maybe you didn't notice it. It has the appearance that it was from a medical textbook. BTW it is also on Shutterstock.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute?

Im saying you debunked it yourself when you posted 20 other YouTube videos that are full of shit.

I posted 2 YouTube videos about cartoons and some videos of Dr Jo. The old footage is a single YouTube video which I uploaded myself. There were not 20 YouTube videos but I guess it's ok to be inaccurate because it is you. Anyway if a person is lying all of the time it doesn't prove the next thing they say is definitely a lie. e.g. say the next thing they said was "the sun is shining". That doesn't prove that was a lie.

If you want to understand whether your cartoon is accurate or not, look at the URL. If it says "YouTube" and is not from a medical textbook or instruction on the subject, it's not likely to be accurate. Even if it is and is being talked about by those scientifically illiterate chucklefucks, you still won't be able to walk away with an accurate picture for the spin.

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

Post #564 does NOT mention YouTube. It seems to be from a pro-abortion site because it uses the euphemism "a surgical procedure to remove tissue from the uterus". Here is the illustration again:

Maybe you didn't notice it. It has the appearance that it was from a medical textbook - I doubt they'd go to that expense just to put it on a single web page.

And again we get back to the issue here with what we all mean by "fake" with respect to your sources.

We mean "fake" as in "misrepresentational" but said in a way you might hopefully understand, and the reason I'm not going to discuss "one more thing" is the fact that you haven't come to realize or admit or even draw back from the pattern that put the last 3 shit takes on the floor.

 

[excreationist]

Post #564 does NOT mention YouTube. It seems to be from a pro-abortion site because it uses the euphemism "a surgical procedure to remove tissue from the uterus". Here is the illustration again:

Maybe you didn't notice it. It has the appearance that it was from a medical textbook - I doubt they'd go to that expense just to put it on a single web page.

And again we get back to the issue here with what we all mean by "fake" with respect to your sources.

We mean "fake" as in "misrepresentational" but said in a way you might hopefully understand, and the reason I'm not going to discuss "one more thing" is the fact that you haven't come to realize or admit or even draw back from the pattern that put the last 3 shit takes on the floor.

I guess I've got no choice but to create a whole new thread about images like this one because you refuse to acknowledge its existence and want to keep on complaining about my old posts which I said I gave up on.

 

[TomC]

I guess I've got no choice but to create a whole new thread about images like this one

You have lots of other choices. Why would you make that one?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I guess I've got no choice but to create a whole new thread about images like this one

You have lots of other choices. Why would you make that one?
Tom

IKR? Like what's the fucking point? It's "fake" because it's being used to argue falsehoods about brutality.

It's technically veracity and story doesn't matter.

 

[excreationist]

People keep on ignoring the cartoons and illustrations though they have excuses for it. I want people to talk about it so it seems the only choice is to make another thread

 

[Jarhyn]

People keep on ignoring the cartoons and illustrations though they have excuses for it. I want people to talk about it so it seems the only choice is to make another thread

Nobody is going to talk about it because it's fucking stupid, and we explained why. It doesn't say anything arguing some technical point over the fact that no matter where the image came from, it doesn't speak to any possible argument about the appropriateness of abortion.

It is a red herring and making a thread about it is just going to piss a lot of people off why someone keeps bumping a red herring thread.