Is Abortion Murder?

Yeah, because hormones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Misrepresentation...in your opinion. There's nothing warm and fuzzy about abortion--not for the mother, not for the child. It's a double down situation that will live with the woman for a lifetime. A rational and logical person would choose life over death, IMO. If people are becoming radicalized by the fact that millions have been killed, they might have reason. If it were any other group of people, we would take notice and make an effort to stop it.

[/QUOTE]

Better yet, let's show them a video of a live birth in contrast to an abortion. Both would be very educational. Also, I've seen videos of dying aids patients, maybe that should be included in their education. No need to refuse treatment.

A belief in abstinence promotes sexual misguidance? I would much rather think that societies attitude is, in general, the fundamental problem. Though I appreciate the effort to put a lid on STD's and unwanted pregnancies, there's still a lot of pressure on kids to get involved, if you understand my meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, maybe more education can curb those raging hormones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think more education will change the fact that they're teens.

They'll do rash, stupid stuff just the way they've always done.

 

Maybe what they need is an abortion to teach them, eh?

 

Yes.

It also promotes a willingness to do or believe anything that will discourage young women from having sex. Look at yourself, regarding abortion. You're obsessed with a fantasy of horror that doesn't even square with your own perception of reality otherwise.

That doesn't excuse someone getting their news and reference posts from the likes of Breitbart. The only reason that site wasn't sued out of existence was the remarkably convenient death of Breitbart himself - and it's not easy to put a slander case together in the US: finding ordinary lies and bs won't do it.

Meanwhile, your equivalency is false - you don't know what you are talking about with left-leaning news sites, because you don't know what "left-leaning" means.

Or maybe you do. Look at this:

Why "midterm", instead of normal and ordinary?

Because you know that normal and ordinary, while far more educational for the young or anyone not in medical school, would not have the effect you want. Because education, competent understanding, has never been your interest.

So maybe all this disturbingly warped stuff you post is cold blooded calculation. You know what Breitbart is doing, and you're doing it too.

 

nope
in fact.
proven.
see above for details.
just because you can't read or you don't want to acknowledge facts doesn't mean they aren't real... that is called delusional, you know...

but they're being radicalized by religious stupidity, not by reason
which was my point

you do realise that most mothers who take birthing classes actually do this already, right?
heck, they showed this in my school during sex ed... and i'm sure they do this elsewhere as well, because i've talked to my grandkids about it.

not really. what do you learn by watching the video that you can't learn better by studying factual data?
inciting fear is irrational and doesn't allow for logical rational thought. making kids fear pregnancy by watching screaming women?
my first wife went through labor thinking she was constipated... the kid popped out 4 minutes after they intentionally broke her water. it was like watching a football game with the Doc filling in as QB...not a birth. no screaming. no yelling. very little pain (her words). which was good, because the video she watched scared the crap out of her...

watching the real life of one person (like that video) doesn't mean it is representative of all life or all people, you know. that is why a factual representation would have been better for us regarding birth, etc.

and?
that wasn't the point... certain correctable diseases can still kill in horrible ways...

no... refusing to allow people to learn about facts will, though!
teaching false ideas, lying, misrepresentation and promoting unsubstantiated conjecture will definitely do it though!
when you promote only abstinence as a solution, then a typical mind will almost invariably want to seek out other possible solutions or at least explore the reasoning. being human almost guarantee's this, you know... because we like to ask why

but the only way to fight this is to not allow freedom of thought.
which would definitely be fought against, IMHO.... we are not sheep... sure, there are truly stupid people (as demonstrated by those who blindly follow a religious dogma without ever asking why, or seeking to substantiate a claim) ... but for the most part, there is a driving need to be individual or special in some way.

education is the best thing for the problems... but trying to teach by using fear or religion is not education, it is forcing opinion or trying to advocate for a belief (call it state sponsored religion, if you will)

not sure i do understand your meaning. please elaborate.
thanks.

probably not...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328112127.htm

 

Not a chance. You have to accept that they will have sex.

 

It's misleading to you because you failed to read the site's own description of its content.

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

Can’t you read?

As far as images of rape, murder and torture, that’s pretty much covered by mainstream entertainment in the form of TV shows and movies. Images related to human obstetrical issues are less pervasive. As with most graphic content, you would expect parents to introduce it to children at an age that they would be prepared to adequately process it, and I pretty much followed this rule with my kids. At fairly young ages, both my kids were able to witness the birth of kittens, live and stillborn, so they understood the birth process firsthand from these experiences. They were probably shown videos of human births at 6-7 years of age. At that same age my children were watching nature documentaries of wild animals being born and killed, and experiencing the loss of our own pets to wild predators in our area. I would say access to videos of abortion would be appropriate for kids about the same time they’re receiving sex-ed in schools in the 4th or 5th grades.

Surgery requires tools that are designed for its practice, since abortion requires surgery, those surgical tools used in abortion are also designed for abortion.

Using an axe to chop wood isn’t usually considered a gruesome use of an axe, while chopping someone’s head of is. The gruesome nature of an object depends on the context of its use. Many, if not most people would view many surgical procedures, including abortions, as gruesome acts to watch.

Would you consider TPM and Raw Story, two sites I read daily to be left leaning?

Because it’s the only term abortions they presented on the site. Other than anti abortion videos like Silent Scream, there’s not a whole lot in the way of video of abortion procedures online, but I did manage find a couple.

From a Conservative media site.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/warning-graphic-partial-birth-abortion-filmed

From a Chinese abortion clinic.

 

no. they're designed for surgery.
showing a scalpel and stating it is designed for the use of carving dead babies is misleading (lying) every bit as much as showing manual suction and stating it is designed for sucking baby parts out of the womb is misleading and lying. it is designed for clearing blood or other material during surgery

calling it "designed for abortions" is simply lying for the sake of fear, stupidity and delusional beliefs
you can also use Lineman pliers/cutters to do the same task (probably easier) but that doesn't mean that's the purpose or design of the tool

so... now you're saying the axe is specifically designed to chop off heads?
what about the sword? is it specifically designed to pry open doors? because it can be used as such... or is it designed to open letters and for surgery, since it can technically do both of those as well?

would you call this a door key because firefighters can use it to open doors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar

nope. sorry... still wrong
the tool is designed for a purpose. just because you can use it for a purpose that it wasn't intentionally designed for doesn't mean it was designed for said purpose nor does it attach any morality, feeling, emotion or "gruesomeness" to it. a tool is an inanimate object.

take the P-38 can opener https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_can_opener

so, as noted, you can use the P-38 as a screwdriver, scraper, blade, cutting tool, weapon, "abortion tool". weapon cleaning and breakdown tool, or any other numerous uses that you can imagine or can attempt out of necessity, but that doesn't change the origin or its original design, which is to be a can opener. I've used the P-38 in many different tasks in my past, from survival school to a makeshift cutting blade during an emergency. still doesn't change the design. still doesn't add any "gruesomeness" or any other adjectives to the tool other than "useful" or "versatile".

it's use doesn't designate it's design.
saying something is designed to be an "abortion tool" when it is designed for general surgical use is like calling yourself an oil spill because you can sit on the floor of your garage.

repeating a known fallacy is delusional and likely is tied to your inability to actually comprehend reality. this is due to the following:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

 

You're still wrong, the instruments displayed in that collection were and are designed to be used in abortions, not necessarily exclusively for abortion, but that claim isn't made at the site either. There is no false imagery.

Of course the imagery is intended to be an anti abortion statement, but that fact isn’t incompatible with the imagery being factual. When you’re talking about tools that are intended to dismember and decapitate what some people consider to be small human beings, it doesn’t get much more gruesome than that. Now the claim that the collection contains the most gruesome tools ever made doesn’t necessarily apply to every tool in the collection, but some arguably could qualify.

The collection I linked to specifically displayed obstetric instruments used in abortions, with many likely used exclusively for that purpose. No one ever claimed that they were all used solely for abortion, that’s your spurious assumption to justify your ridiculous rant.

Destructive OB Instruments

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

What do you think surgical abortion is Einstein? It’s surgery. So the tools used during an abortion were designed to facilitate the surgical elements of that procedure. There’s been no claim that the tools in the Grantham Collection were exclusively designed for abortion, although many likely were, or modified for that purpose.

Some axes were specifically designed to cut off heads.

http://www.rubylane.com/item/733638-1292/German-Ex78ecution-Ax78e-c-1600s

I’m not aware of a modified version of a sword for opening doors, but letter openers, yes. And since beheading is a form of surgery, there are specialized swords for that as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Opener-Double-Edged-Sword-Hebrews/dp/B00305RCV2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executioner's_sword

No, because keys are designed to open locks without destroying them, or the doors that contain them.

Tools are designed with a scope of design functions, some narrow, and others broad.

Objects that elicit perceptions of horror by their intrinsic nature or action can be regarded as characteristically gruesome.

The P-38 is an example of a tool with an intended narrow design function, just as some surgical tools are, while others may be more akin to the multi function design of a Swiss Army knife. The knife segments of a Swiss army knife are intended to be broadly capable cutting instruments, which would include surgery and abortion in their intended design function.

But elements of abortion fall under the category of general surgery, so abortion is included under designed use.

So stop repeating the fallacy that the tools in the collection were not designed to perform abortions.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

This is one of those occasions when I don't like to use words like "childish", "juvenile", or even, "infantile", because the comparison insults children. But our neighbors are going through what is actually a predictable behavioral phase.

As we're aware, abortion is one of several political arguments caught up in a larger paradigm having to do with sex, sexual identity, sexual practice, and divinely-designed sex roles. At it's core, abortion, like, say, homosexuality, unsettles that sense of divine order. But think of Roe, which essentially and functionally legalized abortion.

Two other decisions: Lawrence and Obergefell.

You've seen my historical assertion on this point, that the anti-gay nineties brought enough of a backlash to change the sense of the country and reframe Lawrence in a context that left the Bowers precedent untenable. Before that, when it was ballot measures about state-enforced discrimination and oppression, the argument was hideous: If you don't hurt the queers now, next thing they'll want to get married. It seemed absolutely stupid until the Lawrence decision came down, and then gays said, "Holy shit, this is possible," and traditionalists panicked.

Still, between Lawrence and Obergefell, there was at least an imaginable pathway back to victory.

But not after Obergefell; traditionalists are left staging a wishful insurrection on behalf of the right of supremacists to disqualify others from the law according to personal aesthetics. It's a dumb enough position to argue; at some level purity culture knows it is humiliating itself.

Obergefell is their biggest loss since Roe.

And at the same time, the signs are everywhere. This time people are putting the proverbial foot down. Society seems to have rolled against anti-gay sentiment almost instantaneously, as if all people were waiting for was the formal excuse to finally start telling supremacists to go fuck themselves.

And it's true, while some of that effect is rippling through the American dispute over the humanity and human rights of women, it's also disappointingly unclear just how deeply the bolt has struck.

But the interrelationship exists, and at the same time they're losing the Gay Fray, they seem to have achieved all the progress they might make against contraception, and the purity cult itself is in crisis as now the world has a reality-television view of what that grooming deviance looks like.

They really are in crisis. They are fighting a war they declared for themselves, one they know they cannot win.

Look at, say, Bowser's performance on these issues of late. It's almost like he's recycling canned talking points. Not only the simplistic outbursts in this thread, but I'm still struck by that profile post↗ earlier this week that seemed like an uncreative recitation of a pamphlet talking point explaining how to spread the message. You know, like, Okay, you're envious ... so, you know, go get one. Over a hundred thousand kids in this country needing a home; certes we can find one suiting this consumer's envy. And, you know, it almost seems extraneous to point out how, after all this talk about the zygotal person and all that, the whole point is to envy the other adult who just got something really, really cool and worth envying. To wit, one erases that by customizing the style sheet according to one's needs.

The idea is that soccons are in some state akin to shock, or, if we want to run with the juvenilia idea, have collapsed into that mood where all they can do is roar in desperate hope of antagonizing others because that little rush of feelgood faux empowement is the last thing they think they see worth holding onto in this fight.

They have just suffered their biggest loss in a long-running culture war, and also find their presumed tacit authority, the inherent favoritism assertions of Christianity have enjoyed under law, shattered to the point others are trying to sweep the shards for the rubbish tip.

In the war metaphor, they might have just lost the war insofar as going forward they are not necessarily the established order, and are now viewed as an insurgency against human decency in America. It used to be they could want and fight for these things and be respected as respectable; now they rightly perceive the fast erosion of that privilege, and more and more feel like a despised faction. They've long been despised, but could afford to ignore that because they had societal presupposition on their side. Without that, they really do risk tumbing to the sort of historical infamy we reserve for the KKK and neo-Nazis.

Instead of sitting down with God, or their personal principles, or whatever, and trying to figure out the relationships between what they want and reality, all they can do is ball up their fists and shake with rage. And when it comes to actually doing something, well, we see some examples of what the behavior looks like. Indeed, between Bowser and Capracus we have diverse iterations of the same petulant, pouting, useless nothing that finds its voice as cacophonic incoherence.

Sadly, this is the sort of fist-banging temper tantrum that can become an identity politic; some of these people will spend the rest of their lives bawling in anguish over the tyrannical horror of not being allowed to be a tyrant.

And it's one of those things where I'll do my part, but it's not like I can tell women what to do, how to respond. Still, though, I think a massive societal, "Fuck off!" really ought to become the standard. And if someone wants to go a step further and remind that these are horrible people without whom the species would be better off, well, it's not exactly polite, is it? But what if it's true?

Here's a morbid question: Are they capable of telling the difference between having a conscience and trying to use it as a weapon against others?

For the moment, though, they are reeling, and that question is nowhere on their maps.

 

Well, "There's nothing new under the sun." Just ask any rabid conservative, they will be happy to espouse Ecclesiastes. The final word was written at the beginning - somewhere around 6k years ago - so why wouldn't they be "recycling canned talking points"?

 

“Not for abortion within the context of the discussion?” Like it makes a difference in the unsettling graphic nature of the procedure whether the fetus is extracted due to an elective procedure or a failed pregnancy?

These instruments were designed to remove a fetus, alive or dead from the uterus of its mother. Abortion is the act of removing a fetus alive or dead from the uterus of its mother. They are the same procedures, requiring the same instruments, regardless of the reasons for doing it. The site didn’t state reasons why abortions were preformed, only that they were, and that the procedures are characteristically gruesome.

Back when? In the 1800’s?

The Comstock law, passed in 1873 in the U.S. made it a crime to sell, distribute, or own abortion-related products and services, or to publish information on how to obtain them. Between 1820 and the 1900, abortion became illegal in all States. Laywomen and Physicians began performing illegal abortions at this time. Women who could afford safe abortions would pay up to one to two thousand dollars to have them performed illegally. There were abortion facilities overseas where well-to-do patients could have their abortions performed, but the majority of women with unwanted pregnancies either had to attempt to self-induce abortion, or rely on people who performed them under un-sterile and unsafe techniques. The rate of maternal morbidity and mortality rose sharply.

Intact dilatation and extraction (D&X) was developed by Dr. James McMahon in 1983. It is very similar to a procedure used in the 19th century to save a woman’s life in the case of obstructed labor in which the fetal skull was first punctured with a perforator, then crushed and extracted with a forceps-like instrument, called a cranioclast.

http://www.womenscenter.com/history_abortion.html

Where on the Grantham Collection site does it claim the instruments where used in live abortions? Even though I’m sure they were, the site makes no mention of that fact. They could arguably be the scariest surgical instruments ever devised.

Those tools were designed to remove the products of conception in various states of being from a mother’s womb. That doesn’t imply that some weren’t designed, or couldn’t be used for other surgical purposes as well. For example, if a tool is designed generally to grasp tissue, its design covers any surgical application requiring that need. Even if a handful of the tools in that collection were exclusively designed for abortion and exhibited gruesome characteristics in their use, it still makes the above statement true.

All it objectively conveys is the site’s desire to depict abortion and its associated tools and procedures in an unflattering light, and doing so in a relatively straight forward fashion.

What’s dishonest in this discussion is your refusal to acknowledge the validity of the site’s intended message, that abortion can be a disgusting and disturbing procedure to witness and contemplate. Instead you and others engage in a farcical attack on the perceived duplicity on the part of the presenter.

If all those tools in the collection were designed to remove fetuses and human tissue from a women’s body, then abortion is included in their intended design, because that’s the intended purpose of abortion. Even if only some of the tools were exclusively designed for abortion, the statement is factually true. You can subjectively infer till you’re blue in the face, but the statement doesn’t specifically state what you claim it does.

 

Yep.

Don't hide behind these bs questions. Say it. Say "I, Capracus, see no claim on that site that the tools depicted were and are all designed and intended specifically to be used in ordinary live abortions".

How far will you push the lie?

Backwards. The statement describes all the tools depicted, not some of them. If it isn't true of all of them, it is false.

And that such abortions - midterm, late stage emergency abortions - are common, elective, and done by the millions to healthy live babies in Planned Parenthood clinics.

 

They'll push it as far as any response might be sketched as giving them license to. Remember that the last thing these hatemongers want is to discuss the issue in any real context, because then they are obliged to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women; thus they will say any desperate, stupid thing because, you know, it's like that time Sarah Palin bawled about her First Amendment rights being violated by the idea that people didn't agree with her.

The anti-abortion movement has built up a dysfunctional aesthetic in order to assail the human rights of women; that's what this is and always has been about. And they've just run out of room; the lies and hatred just don't play like they used to.

But the one thing they can't do is have a sober, responsible discussion of the human righs of women, because that would mean acknowledging the humanity and human rights of women, which in turn offends their sincerely held conscientious excrement.

People are no longer willing to sit back and pretend their storybook fantasy is real. They are no longer willing to pretend the harm that fantasy play actually causes people does not occur. And without that bully club to bludgeon people with aesthetic expectations, they don't really have much in their toolboxes other than falling in line with an idiotic assertion of conscience by which truth and reality are disqualified for offending misogynist and misanthropic aesthetics.

It's one thing to say they are welcome to embarrass themselves, but this is just a petulant tantrum hoping to inflict some sort of emotional harm against some stereotype, and it may be society's good fortune that fewer and fewer people resembling their stereotype actually exist.

Once upon a time we would have called those people children, for instance, but fewer and fewer people are raising their children these days with deliberately-crafted exposure to such emotionally-exploitative confidence swindles. And while many who are subject to such upbringings do eventually outgrow their parents' attempts to permanently stunt their intellectual development, plenty also don't, and find in such political movements as anti-abortion and its larger purity cult a place where such psychosocial and cognitive developmental disruption is not simply welcome, but elevated and lionized.

I always say Aquinas, but I'm never certain that's correct: "The sacrifice of the intellect is that in which God most delights." There is to our modern eye an obvious interpretation that speaks no good of Christian faith, though a proper reading would be at least a couple valences less disgusting. However, we see this awful interpretation on display every day in American political discourse. There is some reasonable argument that the sacrifice of the intellect represents a state of trust in God, accepting His Will without tripping up over questions of what one thinks He wants, but more recent history really does favor, in a practical context, the actual forfeiture of intellectual faculties.

That feeling of, "Which one of these words don't you understand?" is actually real; they have vested interest in never being able to comprehend the basic humanity and concomitant human rights of women.

I would, indeed, say, "caught in a mosh"↱, but, honestly, there was a code of honor in my day. I'm not sure how it is these days, but was a time when, allegorically speaking, behaving in the pit as these people conduct themselves in political discourse would earn one some manner of cranial check.

In truth, it's more like a purity bacchinal somewhere "South of Heaven"↱.

[NSFWC]

Spoiler

Forgotten children conform a new faith; avidity and lust controlled by hate. Neverending search for your shattered sanity; souls of Damnation in their own reality. Chaos rampant, an age of distrust! Confrontations! Impulsive habitat! Bastard sons begat your cunting daughters; promiscuous mothers with your incestuous fathers. Entreat souls condemned for all eternity, obtained by immoral observance, a domineering deity. Chaos, rampant, an age of distrust! Confrontations! Impulsive Sabbath! On and on, South of Heaven!

―Slayer↱​

[NSFWC]​

 

Capracus
and again... no, they weren't. they were designed for another purpose entirely and adapted for abortion. which is my point. and just because abortion is considered surgery and invasive doesn't mean that all surgical tools are abortion tools and more than all balls are bowling balls.

the point i had still stands, mensa-boy: you can't label all surgical tools "abortion tools" simply because someone might have once used them (or even still do) in an abortion just like you can't call a basketball a "bowling ball" because one time a bunch of poor kids used one to bowl with.

I know that is hard for you to understand, but it really is true.

uhmm... ok, since you are going to troll with this, i will troll right back: are you stupid, or can't you read?
let me actually quote it to you

[font adaptation for intentional highlight of information by me]
Ok jeenyus: where does grantham actually state the original design and purpose for either tool, their actual design or use for general surgery, that they're only adapted for use by abortion doctors, or that they're tools of general use designed for another purpose and easily adapted to multiple uses?

where does it specify that said tools are regularly used in various ways from minor to major invasive surgeries?

and please note that although the spinal needle is noted in the name, it doesn't actually specify ANY spinal use in it's double purpose description!

if you want to lie to yourself -keep on lying, Capracus... but in the real world, this is called delusional behaviour. (and a few other things too)

ok, but you didn't say "some" abortion tools... and your site doesn't specify "some" ....
the axe was specifically designed to be of a certain heft for use in cutting through wood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe

this is also a perfect example of above: it is specifically designed for a purpose (cutting and shaping wood) but it's versatility was easily adapted and it was used for harder stuff (like bone in prehistoric past) and thus it was adapted for use in things not just wood.
but that doesn't mean it's design was specific to cutting off heads. it was simply adapted.

thank you for actually making my point for me... do you get it yet?

you just made the connection, but do you understand it?

please re-read your own comment about keys and locks
maybe you will get it yet...

though i doubt it, because from what i have read thus far, you are here to troll

yep. i've been trying to tell you that.
what you don't seem to understand (although you came close with the key/door above) is that a tool can have a specific design for a specific function, but that said function will be adaptable and broadly applied in various ways for various uses of which it was not intentionally designed (the axe you mention being a prime example)

get it yet?

sigh... i had hoped you got it... but i guess it is too technical for you.

perhaps you should re-read your own comments and try to understand what you actually wrote about keys?

and also note this: the Haligan (AKA Hooligan) - we don't always call it by name, instead asking a probie or lineman to get us "the master key" to get through a door. Thus, it has been labeled a "key" but it's design was nowhere near the same as a "key" to get through a lock. this is the same situation with regard to your labeling of surgical tools as "abortion tools"... you can label them all you want, but it doesn't change their design, purpose or original intent.

This is what i've been telling you about the surgical tools. i almost thought you had it with the key, but then you started trolling again

i disagree. use determines it's perception.
a butcher knife isn't gruesome
a typical chainsaw isn't gruesome

are you gonna petition congress and the world to start locking up hammers, knives, chainsaws, screwdrivers, lighters or cars because serial killers have used them in the past for the explicit purpose of killing (premeditated) and dismemberment?
[intentional sarcasm/hyperbole - but i doubt you get it]

so now you think the swiss army knife is an abortion tool? better send a copy of a pic to grantham and explain it's horrific gory details... don't forget to explain how the corkscrew is used for cranial dismemberment...
[intentional sarcasm/hyperbole ]

ok, now you are being blatantly stupid.
general surgery tools are specifically designed for general surgery. adaptation of use doesn't mean they're specific to abortion (as i keep trying to explain to you and you almost... ALMOST got with the whole key comment above)

you are the only one repeating a known fallacy.
you are getting use and design mixed up in your head and assuming that they're synonymous without actually knowing what either mean.

a baseball is designed for a purpose, but can be used for other things, like an ad-hoc mini-soccerball for fans of hackey-sack. i've seen kids use soccerballs as basketballs, and vice versa

here is your fallacy spelled out and described in tiny words that maybe you can get this time:
a basketball is designed for a specific purpose

this design is specific to playing basketball.
it can be (and has been) used by poor kids as a soccer ball (which is of a different design and doesn't hurt as much to play soccer with as a basketball)

But you don't call a basketball a "soccer ball" simply because it is used as such: it is still a basketball, it is simply being used as a soccer ball

This is the exact same thing as surgical tools: just because they're used as abortion tools, doesn't mean they are specifically abortion tools (as your site specifically and intentionally dictates)

ive also known deviants to use some of the same tools on granthams abortion tools page for sexual gratification, but that doesn't mean they're specifically sexual tools either, does it? NO


repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, so quit repeating the lie and perpetuating it as some kind of truth... it isn't

your attempts to justify it are making you look bad

 

As long as you keep claiming it is.

Why the distinction between a live abortion and dead one? Is the act of dismembering and extracting a dead fetus that much less gruesome than doing the same to a live one?

Not true, read the statement:

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

The intro to the collection’s images describes them simply as “instruments and tool used in abortions.” Coupled with the prior statement, “the most gruesome medical tools ever made were designed for abortion,” implies that within that collection of tools used in surgical abortion, there exists(since the plural form of tool is used) more than one tool that was designed for abortion that exhibited gruesome characteristics. So for the statement to be true, at least two of the tools, not all of them, would need to exhibit the qualities ascribed to them.

Do you agree that the execution of such abortions can be disturbing and disgusting to witness and contemplate?

Some tools are general use and therefore their design is intended wherever their need is suited. Other tools may be specifically intended for a narrow range of use. The tools used in abortions fall under both these categories. Under a broad definition of bowling, any ball would qualify as a bowling ball. Since all balls are designed to be spherical, and a spherical design is required for a bowling ball, all balls are designed to be bowling balls.

Like I mentioned earlier, the design of general use tools covers any function they are suited to.

A spinal syringe is designed to puncture tissue and create a pressure differential to facilitate the migration of contained fluid to the barrel of the syringe. That inherent design function covers a broad range of surgical applications, including elements of abortion. An inherent design function precedes the designated function of a tool.

You’re looking at tools as if design is just limited to specific qualities. The axe incorporates many design qualities that are not unique to the axe. Cutting edge, head composition and handle qualities, all combine to form what is considered to be an axe. But because of the inherent design qualities of its components, what we call an axe can also be defined as a cutting tool, a driving and pounding instrument, or a club. Using a specific standard of definition, objects can be defined narrowly, using other standards they can be defined more broadly.

Every tool is an adaptation of a previous object or tool. An axe is derived from mounting a cutting tool on to a handle, and then each incremental change to the axe could be said to define its purpose. So when the shape of the wood axe was changed to suite the needs of the executioner, did it cease to be a wood axe? Or, do all tools retain the inherent designs of their original components?

Keys don’t open doors, they open locks. You erroneously mislabeled the Haligan, it’s a door opener. When surgical tools perform the necessary surgical tasks of an abortion, they are abortion tools as well.

Actually perception is determined by inherent physiology and neurological conditioning. If a knife or a chainsaw are associated with perceived gruesome characteristics, they may be perceived as gruesome objects themselves.

You left out another common tool, guns. You're framing a weapons/tool control question which is better suited for a discussion between iceaura and Bells.

From a specific standard of definition, since the knife segments of a Swiss Army knife have no stated specific use other than a general cutting tool, its design function covers any task requiring a cutting tool that can be accomplished with those blades, which would include abortion. Using the same standard, a corkscrew being designed specifically to remove corks from bottles, would not qualify, but would qualify under an inherent design standard.

The general use tools are designed to cover the surgery involved in abortion, but not exclusively.

It depends on whether or not their fetishes involve issues of obstetrics or general surgery. At the point when the sexual procedure also became a characteristic surgical procedure, they would become sex tools as well.

What lie?

Your initial foray into this discussion did the same for you.