Is Abortion Murder?

Especially standard textbook information about anatomy and development, which conflicts with your nasty sources of lies. You can find that in twenty seconds, off the first link in the search page or any of the next five.

Another claim you haven't checked.

Are you going to check any of this stuff before you set out to harass other people and denigrate their morality, etc, from your position of complete ignorance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this is a pretty pathetic excuse for allowing yourself to post blatantly fallacious information... just as is your other excuse

so... basically what you are saying is that it is OK to lie about something as long as it supports your position...

... if someone opposed to your position actually posted using a similar tactic, you would do what?

your site was debunked by simply reading and comparing the "abortion tools" to modern, well used typical OB/GYN and other surgical tools, and the rest of that is simply shock-emotional thrashing about because of the failure of any valid or scientific argument on your part.

this is almost like trying to use Python logic to determine a witch:

and so long as you are willing to EAT, then this excuse is a load of malarkey... animals feel pain, and they' re regularly slaughtered for your sustenance.

So, don't bother with the pathetic excuse (or anecdote) that "you don't fish because..." unless you have gone to only consuming completely artificial vitamins made through processes that never involve animal or plant extracts or production assistance.

Like Ice points out above: you vilify people over this subject because you want to appear to be morally superior, but you yourself don't bother to actually take any time out to do anything but pontificate on this site... so it obviously is not of any keen interest to you... but yet you still argue morality?

you can't even be bothered to check your own sources and validate a claim about something that was very easily debunked (like the use of surgical tools), so why should we actually read or consider anything else you might want to produce as evidence or in argument?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many of the surgical instruments presented on the site are representative of the instruments currently used to perform abortions, while others are not. Whether or not the images and videos depict the products of actual abortions or failed pregnancies is not clear, but since both are technically abortions, it really doesn’t matter because at least visually, much of the process and end result are still the same. Some people are going to be influenced to be against abortions by imagery of delivered and dismembered dead fetuses, which is a reality in abortion processes, so I can’t fault the operators of the site for trying to use actual or comparative imagery to accomplish that end.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cherry-picking bullshit. You "can't fault the operators of the site" is like calling Breitbart a "news source".

Please.

 

The posted imagery related to surgical procedures speaks for itself, regardless of the ideology of the presenter. The site displays imagery that is, or representative of, current and historical abortion procedures. What exactly is being cherry picked?

Well actually I would call Breitbart a news source, since much of what they present is sourced from mainstream news outlets. Like this one for example:

Police Raid on Abortionist’s Car Reveals 14 Containers of Human Tissue, Possibly Fetuses

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...als-containers-human-tissue-possibly-fetuses/

Which originated from here:

Raid on doctor's office after possible fetuses found in car - Was he performing illegal abortions?

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oak...octors-car-was-he-peforming-illegal-abortions

You may not appreciate the spin they put on the story, but the basic content of the story is nonetheless legitimate news.

 

You take lies and bs as news because it's altered from stuff they found in the mainstream news?

The National Inquirer used to source "much of what they presented" in the mainstream news, as did the Weekly World News - including this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Notice how much of the story there is based on the mainstream news - there really was a Presidential election involving John McCain and Barack Obama, for example, and there really are subway tunnels in New York City. So the basic content is legitimate - you may not like the spin, where the Bat Boy is reported as endorsing Obama when really nobody knows for sure who he voted for, but that's a quibble for a Breitbart reader.

 

I always question the source when it comes to news and commentary, so until I can evaluate a story from diverse sources, its validity remains in question.

So you’re equating the bulk of Breitbart’s news content to that of outright fabricating and sensationalist publications? Show me how Breitbart regularly engages in anything close to the degree of adulteration employed by the tabloids you mentioned. I would put the right leaning Breitbart News in the same legitimacy category as the left leaning Huffington Post.

 

Capracus
considering your historical comments, i am guessing that you are intentionally being stupid and trying to troll or inflame the discussion by posting this feedback of the site?
or do you truly believe that?
Lets break some of this down:
on the site, there are posting pictures of what is considered "abortion tools". these tools are being visually taught to represent abortions and negativity and as such are being described and suggested as tools that have NO other function.
so, if you inundate your children with said information, and then take your daughter for routine OB/GYN appointments (or, perhaps she requires a minor procedure during a pregnancy that would include tools listed there, which is highly probable), and she see's said "abortion" tools... what do you think would happen?

intentional misrepresentation of facts and the cherry-picking with intent to mislead means you are lying. period. full stop!
it is not a matter of "people are going to be influenced to be against abortions by imagery", it is a matter of cherry-picking for intentional misrepresentation which leads to not only ignorance on the part of the observer (especially if said observer doesn't actually check the facts before passing them on) but also sowing fear and causing panic which would otherwise not exist.

Tools are tools, and there are many medical tools that are multi-purpose. to label them as specific to a procedure when they're not is stupid.

and that doesn't even address the fact that some of the tools listed are historical (and archaic) and would not be used in today's medical practices... but then again, that is what you are going for, right? intentional shock and fear. you want people to be emotional so they can't think logically. this is typical of some of your other posts as well (pedophilia, bestiality, supporting rape)

no, it doesn't...
you cannot say that a spinal needle on a syringe speaks to the abortion because it is designed for lumbar punctures and is utilised for multiple purposes... this is just like saying that diabetic needles can only be used for drugs. it is a blatant misrepresentation and the "description" and imagery would cause others to report any diabetic who used needles to law enforcement for incarceration.

- the site also uses archaic historical back alley tools and lists them with modern tools. this is misleading and lying
- the site depicts modern surgical tools that are used in multiple procedures as "abortion tools", which is misleading and misrepresentation. this is called lying. (why not just say that anyone who wears an expensive suit is Mafioso, or don't you get that point yet?)
- selective descriptions of tools which do not include the beneficial uses is intentional, and is misrepresentation of facts. AKA- cherry-picking. lying.
- descriptions of procedures without factual or clinical data while utilising general terminology (and especially if specific clinical data is not added) is misrepresentation (lying. cherry-picking). it's like showing a picture/video of a sebaceous hyperplasia, or acrochordons and seborrheic keratoses treatment and saying "this is what Tumor surgery/treatment looks like"

"Saturday Night Fever"

yeah... the news never gets it wrong, and posting news from an intentionally biased news site is logical. gotcha.
this is called confirmation bias, and it is the underlying problem with religious, conspiricist ideation and the fanatical trolls of pseudoscience when they seek further circular reasoning for their refusal to address factual data. i posted a study about this a few pages back... perhaps you should read it.

EDIT: i will link it again, because i know researching facts or seeking actual data is not your strong suit.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

 

The "bulk"? Oh, I never figured out what the percentages were. For all I know maybe 90% of Breitbart's stuff is actually legit, and they are only running deliberately misedited slander videos and known falsehoods from paid propaganda sources and freakshow tabloid material (birther stuff, say) a minor percentage of the time. How much tabloid and lies and slander is acceptable to you?

And you thereby indict yourself as a fool. All journalism sources with respect for factual accuracy in politically charged areas are known as "left-leaning", in the US. For example, the straight news in the WSJ has been for years "left-leaning" by US standards, although it's coming around since Murdoch bought it: http://www.allsides.com/blog/bias-ratings-change-wall-street-journal-and-others http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

Notice, in the Freakonomics study, that while the author rates almost all the major media in the US as "left"(which he equates with "liberal", because he's ignorant) - scoring above 50 - some are much more "left" than others, and notice which ones they are: the WSJ and the NYT and the LA Times lead the "left". So his center point is different but his rankings agree.

Those three also lead most estimation of journalistic accuracy in their straight news. This is not a coincidence. And their major known failures of integrity - http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iraq-war-and-stubborn-myths-1428087215 - , hiring David Brooks or Bill Kristol as columnists, etc - are almost entirely on the "right". They don't miss left very often.

A little history:

 

so in other words you don't give 2 shits if there lying as long as it serves your purposes

 

I don’t’ know if you have any children, but mine were taught not only by me, but also their health science courses in school, to verify the credibility of their information sources. So if they were to encounter a website like the Grantham Collection, they would look at the About Us section and find:

ABORTION TOOLS ARCHIVE
The largest abortion tool collection in the world. From modern tools to the 16th century.
The most gruesome medical tools ever made were designed for abortion.

The Grantham Collection condemns all abortion-related violence.

INSTRUMENTS AND TOOLS USED IN SURGICAL ABORTION

http://granthamcollection.com/new_index.html#instruments

From the above statement they would be informed that the instruments displayed are representative of the history of abortion procedures, not just the contemporary variety. Visiting children would also have the opportunity to see a video example of a relatively modern mid term abortion procedure, which aren’t that easy to find online. Other than some short side statements condemning abortion, there’s not much in the way of anti abortion propaganda. They basically present the images and let the viewers decide for themselves.

The Grantham collection is exposing the world’s most pressing problem. The collection is visual evidence of history's injustices to the pre-born. This collection uses visual facts to allow the intellectually honest person to discover on his or her own if abortion is an injustice.

http://granthamcollection.com/abortion_videos.html

And if an inquisitive child were to do a little research, they would find:

Accoucheur's Antique - The FC Gapultos Collection

http://www.fcgapultoscollection.com/dobfor.html

Which happens to exhibit many of the same instruments included in the Grantham Collection. So it appears that the Grantham website hasn’t misrepresented its content at all.

Whether right or left leaning, most news sites require you to wade through some degree of BS, so while somewhat annoying at times, it’s the price you pay to access a variety of information.

 

Do you also show children videos of torture, rape and murder, so they can decide for themselves how to deal with those real-life issues? (No propaganda - just present the videos and let them decide.)

 

I think it would be a good lesson for teens. It might promote responsible behavior. Judging from what I've seen and read--and not even touching on the moral issue--the abortion procedures look like a terrible ordeal.

 

Hmm. Should we show them videos of women who die during childbirth as well, so they can see what could happen to them if they get pregnant and don't get an abortion?

 

You would be hard pressed to find such in our day and age. Maybe in an underdeveloped country without proper medical services--if you're really wanting to make your point. We studied STD's when I was in school, why not the whole picture?

 

Not hard at all; over 700 women in the US died in 2013 while trying to give birth. That's over one per day.

 

It's not, sorry. And how about promoting condoms?

 

Condoms are already distributed in schools, yet teens still get pregnant and have abortions.

 

Capracus
well, it's not relevant, but i have a few children and grandchildren, and i do teach them to verify the credibility of their sources.... but the point is not that the site is full of crap, but that ... in the words of pjdude1219 (because it is succinct and well said):

and yes, the site does make the claim, but (as noted) some of those "abortion tools" that are listed are NOT specifically designed for abortion, as you quote here:

a lot of the "gruesome medical tools" are simply medical tools with multiple purposes and functions that are used for things like: lumbar punctures, OB/GYN regular checkups, vaccinations, holding sponges to absorb blood (or suction for the same purpose) to be able to see for surgical accuracy, etc...
claiming that they are "gruesome medical tools designed for abortion" is an outright lie, misrepresenting modern (and historical) surgical tools

what kind of idiot would expose a CHILD to that kind of data without factual scientific data to represent what is actually happening?
even i wouldn't do that, and our family has a lot of medical folk in it... plus, there is always technical data to know... and if we did show anything of the sort, it is by request and we don't go for shock, but fact. key point there...FACTS, not pseudoscience or religious fearmongering BS.
i would allow them to view a surgery, but i wouldn't try to scare the horse-puckey out of them.

the simply fact that you condone it speaks volumes about you, but even ignoring that point: when you misrepresent data for the sake of a religious or other belief, it is called pseudoscience (among other things), and it is specifically no better than trying to shove your beliefs down another persons throat and force them to accept your brand of stupidity... and as long as it is a belief without evidence, or you misrepresent it and intentionally support or condone the lie (like above) then it is NOT discourse, information, sharing, logical, or anything other than forceful fanaticism (perhaps you should actually read the study i linked?)

are you illiterate?
so long as you quote the following

and then you post pictures of MODERN SURGICAL TOOLS used on common surgery, labeled as "gruesome medical tools...designed for abortion", then it is misrepresentation. (aka- a LIE)
I don't expect you to get that... especially considering your historical posts, but (unfortunately for you) it is true

except, of course, they label modern surgical tools as specifically designed abortion tools... (which is misrepresentation, aka- LYING) - see above for more details

...but what are actual facts when you have your own personal delusion to believe in, right?

Bowser
i don't. if you are utilising fear, emotion as well as misrepresentation as a teaching tool and tactic, then the only thing that can possibly come from it is either:
1- you will drive away any logical thinking rational person (and lose your own credibility)
or
2- you will simply create a fanatical delusional person willing to take extreme lengths that are not rational or logical (or well thought out... you know, like bombing a hospital because a doctor might perform abortions works there?)

not really... if you want to show the point from one perspective, then why not address all perspectives? it is a valid point and requires honest answers. if you want to use fear and controlling emotional video's to force people to "think about abortions" then why not show the potential suffering that can come from not getting one as well?
so when you state:

why not also promote and watch video's of the torturous ways it can also kill? (pictures don't do the pain justice... so lets get some syphilitic patients dying and allow them to not have treatment, etc... after all, it is the same as refusing a woman the right to abortion, isn't it?)

a lot of the reasoning behind that may also be because of the stigma and problems promoted by fanatical religious folk who are too misguided and hypocritical pushing a belief that is not constructive and not based upon sound principles... don't you think?