Can we at least end one narrative?

[Larry]

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

On that, there's one thing I tend to disagree with you on here, which is the very thing I've been trying to illustrate. My bad I guess, for choosing abortion as the example so that it probably got lost completely in the heat (what the hell was I thinking ). What I disagree with you on, without wanting to minimize the impact it has despite that or saying that your anger is in any way misplaced, is that each and every one of those people who uses language in that way, does it with an intentional disregard for public erosion, solely to work their way up in a company in a dishonest way (or any other objective they think they could achieve with it).

I actually don't disagree with you about that. But you have to look at the full thread: where the ideas originated from, and what happens after they permeate into society. How they're adopted.

Monkey See, Monkey Do. My co-worker from several years ago is a perfect example of this. She wasn't intentionally disregarding civility or mutual respect for a colleague. She just saw other people act that way enough that it seemed normal for her to try it out herself. It wasn't malicious, it was just an option to get what you want, like changing your car insurance.

But why did she find it so acceptable to do so? Surely you don't just throw around sexism charges just to get what you want? Sure you do, after enough people came before her to set the example for her.

The originators, the folks on the far left who started pushing this, are the ones who see everything in terms of power struggles and that the ends justify any means. The adopters are just parroting what they see their peers doing. If you have neo-liberal views, then this is how you express yourself. They become useful idiots in effect.

Another note: the right is different in this regard. The originators of militant right-wing ideology have different intentions. With abortion, for example, the folks picketing outside abortion clinics honestly hear "abortion" and imagine children getting murdered. They don't imagine anything else. So they're coming from a place of crimes against humanity.

Not so with the left's originators. They have made a cold, calculated decision to weaponize their language. For them, it's "whatever works to get what I want." It's how Foucault and Derrida taught the originators to act, and it's what's parroted by the left's followers; the vibe of the message stays the same even though the parroters don't know what they're doing. But the motivations behind the militant left's originators and those on the right are completely different and have nothing to do with politics.

[Nunatax]

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

I know perfectly well what I said. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you keep being so angry. Although we obviously disagree on how we’d go about to achieve it, we are pretty much aligned on what a reasonable legislation on abortion looks like.

[Nunatax]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

On that, there's one thing I tend to disagree with you on here, which is the very thing I've been trying to illustrate. My bad I guess, for choosing abortion as the example so that it probably got lost completely in the heat (what the hell was I thinking ). What I disagree with you on, without wanting to minimize the impact it has despite that or saying that your anger is in any way misplaced, is that each and every one of those people who uses language in that way, does it with an intentional disregard for public erosion, solely to work their way up in a company in a dishonest way (or any other objective they think they could achieve with it).

I actually don't disagree with you about that. But you have to look at the full thread: where the ideas originated from, and what happens after they permeate into society. How they're adopted.

Monkey See, Monkey Do. My co-worker from several years ago is a perfect example of this. She wasn't intentionally disregarding civility or mutual respect for a colleague. She just saw other people act that way enough that it seemed normal for her to try it out herself. It wasn't malicious, it was just an option to get what you want, like changing your car insurance.

But why did she find it so acceptable to do so? Surely you don't just throw around sexism charges just to get what you want? Sure you do, after enough people came before her to set the example for her.

The originators, the folks on the far left who started pushing this, are the ones who see everything in terms of power struggles and that the ends justify any means. The adopters are just parroting what they see their peers doing. If you have neo-liberal views, then this is how you express yourself. They become useful idiots in effect.

Another note: the right is different in this regard. The originators of militant right-wing ideology have different intentions. With abortion, for example, the folks picketing outside abortion clinics honestly hear "abortion" and imagine children getting murdered. They don't imagine anything else. So they're coming from a place of crimes against humanity.

Not so with the left's originators. They have made a cold, calculated decision to weaponize their language. For them, it's "whatever works to get what I want." It's how Foucault and Derrida taught the originators to act, and it's what's parroted by the left's followers; the vibe of the message stays the same even though the parroters don't know what they're doing. But the motivations behind the militant left's originators and those on the right are completely different and have nothing to do with politics.

Yes, there’s nothing there I disagree with. I’m not even sure I would call those picketing outside abortion clinics to be deliberate originators of an ideology, although that may be the intention of some of them. With the exception of the use of violence, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with protests against abortion. The parallel that I’m drawing here, is the strength of the underlying emotions and the accompanying tendency to condemn others far too quickly. At bottom, this is an emotional response and the disregard for the other side’s perspective is (largely) undeliberate. And to me, that seems to be what the left’s originators are exploiting. They know these emotions are prevalent enough so that the accusations that they are weaponising, however baseless they may be, have a pretty good chance to not only go unchallenged, but that they will be confirmed. And from then on, it only proliferates further until the group of the accused has had enough of it.

So those who participate in protests against abortion imagine children getting murdered, and in and of itself I don’t see a problem with that, and there’s nothing there that looks like it’s cold and calculated. What does the other side imagine when abortion rights are threatened to become more restricted? They imagine it’s simply a part of the ongoing war on women and that it is only the start of the complete destruction of their reproductive rights. Without having to go very far back in time, they see the attempts at undermining access to contraception; they hear how women who come up for the most basic form of birth control are called “slut” and “prostitute” on national television; they hear republican men making all kinds of odd and unsubstantiated claims about rape, etc. I don’t see anything cold and calculated there either. I see legitimate concerns, and legitimate emotions. But emotions strong enough to be exploited by those who want it. In this case to weaponise the term “sexism”, applying it whenever they see it fit to further their agenda, just because it works. But the fact that these emotions are being exploited in unacceptable ways, doesn’t mean the emotions themselves are not real or unjustified. They have just as much a cause that deserves to be examined.

The problems you describe are things we don’t see here to such a problematic extent. If you’re going to try to work your way up the professional food chain here by discrediting others by calling them racist, you better have a very good explanation why or it is going to blow up in your face. If you’re going to accuse someone of being a sexist for talking in a deep voice, your manager is going to talk to you in private to tell you that does not make much sense.

Although over here the word racist is also often used all too eagerly (also by people who don’t seem to know its exact meaning), it’s mainly used by people confined in the radical left party and is mainly aimed at those confined in the radical right party. They exist, but they don’t get much attention. And therefore, within the boundaries of center-left to center-right, that stuff just doesn’t fly.

[Jolly]

Over there, ain't over here.

[Larry]

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

I know perfectly well what I said. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you keep being so angry. Although we obviously disagree on how we’d go about to achieve it, we are pretty much aligned on what a reasonable legislation on abortion looks like.

What on earth gives you the idea that I'm angry? You frustrate me because you can't focus, and you insist on being dishonest. You're all over the map. But I'm not angry about it. The simple truth is you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I've figured out how to explain this. You and I are from different planets. You come from a world of academics where great importance is placed on sitting around staring at your navel, postulating and pontificating endlessly because that's what your peers consider evidence of intelligence. I come from a world where the facts don't shift around like they do for you, where the navel gazing and pontificating gets in the way of getting shit done. We were discussing late term abortions. I described what that entails. That made you uncomfortable and you told me I shouldn't make anyone feel bad. I should use fluffy bunny talk. I told you I disagree, that describing the act is exactly what needs to be said, not fluffy bunny words. To win your cause, you expanded it to include all abortions, when called on it you tried to justify late term abortions with a flat out lie about them being medically necessary. When that was disproved, you decided you'd accuse me of being angry.

So here are the facts, laid out simply and easy to follow:

1. The issue is late term abortions, where the baby is full term, on its way out of the birth canal.
2. This baby is grabbed by a doctor, a pair of scissors are stuck in its spine, and it's head is pulled off. Then it is dismembered, it's vital organs are harvested, and everything else is tossed in the trash.
3. This is almost never done for medical reasons, it is almost always done purely because a selfish little shit for brains girl didn't want to be bothered with a baby.

[Nunatax]

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

I know perfectly well what I said. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you keep being so angry. Although we obviously disagree on how we’d go about to achieve it, we are pretty much aligned on what a reasonable legislation on abortion looks like.

What on earth gives you the idea that I'm angry? You frustrate me because you can't focus, and you insist on being dishonest. You're all over the map. But I'm not angry about it. The simple truth is you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I've figured out how to explain this. You and I are from different planets. You come from a world of academics where great importance is placed on sitting around staring at your navel, postulating and pontificating endlessly because that's what your peers consider evidence of intelligence. I come from a world where the facts don't shift around like they do for you, where the navel gazing and pontificating gets in the way of getting shit done. We were discussing late term abortions. I described what that entails. That made you uncomfortable and you told me I shouldn't make anyone feel bad. I should use fluffy bunny talk. I told you I disagree, that describing the act is exactly what needs to be said, not fluffy bunny words. To win your cause, you expanded it to include all abortions, when called on it you tried to justify late term abortions with a flat out lie about them being medically necessary. When that was disproved, you decided you'd accuse me of being angry.

So here are the facts, laid out simply and easy to follow:

1. The issue is late term abortions, where the baby is full term, on its way out of the birth canal.
2. This baby is grabbed by a doctor, a pair of scissors are stuck in its spine, and it's head is pulled off. Then it is dismembered, it's vital organs are harvested, and everything else is tossed in the trash.
3. This is almost never done for medical reasons, it is almost always done purely because a selfish little shit for brains girl didn't want to be bothered with a baby.

Dude, can you even follow yourself?

First of all, on your repetitive claim that "we" were discussing late term abortions and I expanded on it: when I brought up abortion, I did so to use it as an example of how people on the right side just as easily put the entire left collectively into a box. Some may limit their use of terms like "baby murderer" to target only those who believe elective late-term abortions are OK, others believe IUD's are murder weapons (i.e. you somehow committed murder even before getting pregnant), and there's many somewhere in between. You may be part of the first group, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean the other groups are suddenly no longer relevant to the discussion. So here's what's actually happened: "we" weren't discussing anything when I brought up the topic of abortion as part of a much broader discussion, and it's you who barged in and decided to make it only about late-term abortions. Not only that, you made it extremely specific to a case where the baby is full term. Sure, late-term abortion is a political term that has been criticised by doctors for being unscientific and suggestive of a pregnancy already past the due date, but it's mainly used to indicate abortions after the first trimester, though some limit its use to the third trimester. But I haven't seen any credible evidence that that has ever been done to a baby that was full term in the US, within the existing laws. Why would any sane doctor agree to that? Or why would a mother want that? Maybe it happens in criminal circles, I don't know.

And you keep repeating your fluffy bunny theory about me and call me dishonest, say that I have lied about something... Well ok, let's have a closer look at that:

1. The fluffy bunny term theory that you like to keep repeating: repeating it may make it true in your head, but that doesn't make it actually true. It is here black-on-white, in crystal clear language that I am against elective late-term abortions. To me, the abortion procedures that are used are a part of the reason why I am against elective late-term abortions (i.e. abortions after 21 weeks). If I'm having a serious conversation with someone who insists that elective late-term abortion should be allowed (especially all the way up to full term), and we end up at a point in the conversation where I explain why I am against it, then I'll bring those procedures up as a part of my reasons, and describe them myself if the other side appears to be clueless about them. But when I brought up abortion as an example and as part of a much broader issue that was being discussed, my intention was not to shove a graphic description of those procedures down the throat of anyone who might get to read them while going through this thread. Nobody here asked for that. As Phibes pointed out, some who stumble upon your descriptions here may have been involved one way or another with abortions, and for whom it may very well have been one of the most difficult things in their lives. On top of that, what are you trying to prove by posting those descriptions over and over again? It told you several times by now that I'm against elective late-term abortion, so what's the purpose? What are you trying to achieve here?

2. You claim that I lied, made something up about late-term abortions being medically necessary and that you disproved it. Here it's important to take a pause, especially given your apparent insistence to limit this to babies carried full term, and make very clear what I'm talking about here. As I mentioned above, late-term abortion is a political term, but is most commonly used to refer to abortions after the first trimester (after 21 weeks). As far as I know, there are US states that allow elective abortions up to 24 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong). In those states elective abortions up to 24 weeks may very well happen, so some of them will be after 21 weeks. Now, on to the paper you posted: in it, it is explained that definitions of medical necessity vary and are sometimes so broad that it is possible to get an abortion for medical reasons after the state's specific legal limit for elective abortion, for reasons that are practically the same as those given for elective abortions before the state's specific limit. I also quote the following from the paper: "However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,...". I never said anything about those definitions, which vary and are sometimes too broad (even here in Belgium, there are some parts of the definition of which I'm not yet sure I'm happy with). I also never made any claim about why most late-term abortions are performed, or why they are "most often performed for". Never. I said late-term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and they are sometimes medically necessary. One might argue that in the case of severe fetal abnormality, there isn't a strict necessity, and that's ok. But as an example in the specific case of an urgent need to intervene to save the mother's life: it happens that an abortion procedure is the logical choice at a point in the pregnancy where a fetus could theoretically already live outside the womb, whereas in practice the fetus has been affected by the mother's health condition which reduces its chances of survival to zero at the point where the intervention is necessary. So I don't know where you think that I lied about anything, or what you think I was dishonest about.

To some extent, the definition of medical necessity is always going to contain a certain grey area that is going to be a point of discussion. Especially when it comes to necessity, as it is typically broader than the extreme case I gave above. And those discussions are fine. Discussion and revision (e.g. to account for medical progress) is good to keep the definitions as clear as possible. I never expect a definition though, that will be accepted by everyone, and I have no intendion to start a battle on the details. If the definition is too broad however, and true medical necessity goes all but lost, that is regrettable, and then it has to be revised in those legislations. I also don't deny that that happens. But none of that means that medical necessity is completely fake and that a full abortion ban after 21 weeks (or whichever term you personally think is reasonable), is warranted.

[Larry]

You need to face a hard fact, guy - you are intellectually dishonest. Either that, or your ability to follow a conversation is poor.

[Jolly]

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

I know perfectly well what I said. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you keep being so angry. Although we obviously disagree on how we’d go about to achieve it, we are pretty much aligned on what a reasonable legislation on abortion looks like.

What on earth gives you the idea that I'm angry? You frustrate me because you can't focus, and you insist on being dishonest. You're all over the map. But I'm not angry about it. The simple truth is you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I've figured out how to explain this. You and I are from different planets. You come from a world of academics where great importance is placed on sitting around staring at your navel, postulating and pontificating endlessly because that's what your peers consider evidence of intelligence. I come from a world where the facts don't shift around like they do for you, where the navel gazing and pontificating gets in the way of getting shit done. We were discussing late term abortions. I described what that entails. That made you uncomfortable and you told me I shouldn't make anyone feel bad. I should use fluffy bunny talk. I told you I disagree, that describing the act is exactly what needs to be said, not fluffy bunny words. To win your cause, you expanded it to include all abortions, when called on it you tried to justify late term abortions with a flat out lie about them being medically necessary. When that was disproved, you decided you'd accuse me of being angry.

So here are the facts, laid out simply and easy to follow:

1. The issue is late term abortions, where the baby is full term, on its way out of the birth canal.
2. This baby is grabbed by a doctor, a pair of scissors are stuck in its spine, and it's head is pulled off. Then it is dismembered, it's vital organs are harvested, and everything else is tossed in the trash.
3. This is almost never done for medical reasons, it is almost always done purely because a selfish little shit for brains girl didn't want to be bothered with a baby.

Dude, can you even follow yourself?

First of all, on your repetitive claim that "we" were discussing late term abortions and I expanded on it: when I brought up abortion, I did so to use it as an example of how people on the right side just as easily put the entire left collectively into a box. Some may limit their use of terms like "baby murderer" to target only those who believe elective late-term abortions are OK, others believe IUD's are murder weapons (i.e. you somehow committed murder even before getting pregnant), and there's many somewhere in between. You may be part of the first group, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean the other groups are suddenly no longer relevant to the discussion. So here's what's actually happened: "we" weren't discussing anything when I brought up the topic of abortion as part of a much broader discussion, and it's you who barged in and decided to make it only about late-term abortions. Not only that, you made it extremely specific to a case where the baby is full term. Sure, late-term abortion is a political term that has been criticised by doctors for being unscientific and suggestive of a pregnancy already past the due date, but it's mainly used to indicate abortions after the first trimester, though some limit its use to the third trimester. But I haven't seen any credible evidence that that has ever been done to a baby that was full term in the US, within the existing laws. Why would any sane doctor agree to that? Or why would a mother want that? Maybe it happens in criminal circles, I don't know.

And you keep repeating your fluffy bunny theory about me and call me dishonest, say that I have lied about something... Well ok, let's have a closer look at that:

1. The fluffy bunny term theory that you like to keep repeating: repeating it may make it true in your head, but that doesn't make it actually true. It is here black-on-white, in crystal clear language that I am against elective late-term abortions. To me, the abortion procedures that are used are a part of the reason why I am against elective late-term abortions (i.e. abortions after 21 weeks). If I'm having a serious conversation with someone who insists that elective late-term abortion should be allowed (especially all the way up to full term), and we end up at a point in the conversation where I explain why I am against it, then I'll bring those procedures up as a part of my reasons, and describe them myself if the other side appears to be clueless about them. But when I brought up abortion as an example and as part of a much broader issue that was being discussed, my intention was not to shove a graphic description of those procedures down the throat of anyone who might get to read them while going through this thread. Nobody here asked for that. As Phibes pointed out, some who stumble upon your descriptions here may have been involved one way or another with abortions, and for whom it may very well have been one of the most difficult things in their lives. On top of that, what are you trying to prove by posting those descriptions over and over again? It told you several times by now that I'm against elective late-term abortion, so what's the purpose? What are you trying to achieve here?

2. You claim that I lied, made something up about late-term abortions being medically necessary and that you disproved it. Here it's important to take a pause, especially given your apparent insistence to limit this to babies carried full term, and make very clear what I'm talking about here. As I mentioned above, late-term abortion is a political term, but is most commonly used to refer to abortions after the first trimester (after 21 weeks). As far as I know, there are US states that allow elective abortions up to 24 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong). In those states elective abortions up to 24 weeks may very well happen, so some of them will be after 21 weeks. Now, on to the paper you posted: in it, it is explained that definitions of medical necessity vary and are sometimes so broad that it is possible to get an abortion for medical reasons after the state's specific legal limit for elective abortion, for reasons that are practically the same as those given for elective abortions before the state's specific limit. I also quote the following from the paper: "However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,...". I never said anything about those definitions, which vary and are sometimes too broad (even here in Belgium, there are some parts of the definition of which I'm not yet sure I'm happy with). I also never made any claim about why most late-term abortions are performed, or why they are "most often performed for". Never. I said late-term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and they are sometimes medically necessary. One might argue that in the case of severe fetal abnormality, there isn't a strict necessity, and that's ok. But as an example in the specific case of an urgent need to intervene to save the mother's life: it happens that an abortion procedure is the logical choice at a point in the pregnancy where a fetus could theoretically already live outside the womb, whereas in practice the fetus has been affected by the mother's health condition which reduces its chances of survival to zero at the point where the intervention is necessary. So I don't know where you think that I lied about anything, or what you think I was dishonest about.

To some extent, the definition of medical necessity is always going to contain a certain grey area that is going to be a point of discussion. Especially when it comes to necessity, as it is typically broader than the extreme case I gave above. And those discussions are fine. Discussion and revision (e.g. to account for medical progress) is good to keep the definitions as clear as possible. I never expect a definition though, that will be accepted by everyone, and I have no intendion to start a battle on the details. If the definition is too broad however, and true medical necessity goes all but lost, that is regrettable, and then it has to be revised in those legislations. I also don't deny that that happens. But none of that means that medical necessity is completely fake and that a full abortion ban after 21 weeks (or whichever term you personally think is reasonable), is warranted.

And I thought I was verbose.

[Nunatax]

@Jolly said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:

Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?

I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.

I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.

You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?

I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.

No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.

Justify that.

Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.

Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.

I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.

I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.

I know that's what you were talking about. I expanded on the topic since you barged in on the discussion with all guns blazing, quite determined to claim the moral high ground. That made my "expansion" and my question very relevant, whether you like it or not. And I tried to give it a rest, but since you insist, let me ask you again and this time grant you your wish to limit this to late-term abortions: do you equally fiercely battle those who think late-term abortion should be prohibited no matter what? These people feel it's perfectly ok to let babies be born that suffer from a horribly painful terminal illness. What horrible human beings! So do you?

I suspect you'll deflect again, based on some BS reason.

How about I do this - how about I correct your false notion that late term abortions are done because of some medical problem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

You will find that medical research, after an over 20 year long study, determined that

"However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 "

So I repeat: it is dumbasses like you, who can't stick to the issue, who talk out of their ass throwing out false "facts" that need to shut the hell up. Contrary to your made up little fluffy bunny bull shit, the reality is that women are having their fully developed, full term, perfectly healthy baby's throats cut, their heads pulled off, their arms and legs pulled off, and their vital organs harvested and sold because after carrying the kid for nine months, they suddenly decide having to raise the kid might inconvenience them.

You are full of shit.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t make any claim whatsoever about the occurrence of elective late-term abortions in areas where they are allowed. I said I was convinced that the majority would not let it come that far, not that it doesn’t happen.

You don't have a fucking clue WHAT you've said at this point.

I know perfectly well what I said. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you keep being so angry. Although we obviously disagree on how we’d go about to achieve it, we are pretty much aligned on what a reasonable legislation on abortion looks like.

What on earth gives you the idea that I'm angry? You frustrate me because you can't focus, and you insist on being dishonest. You're all over the map. But I'm not angry about it. The simple truth is you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I've figured out how to explain this. You and I are from different planets. You come from a world of academics where great importance is placed on sitting around staring at your navel, postulating and pontificating endlessly because that's what your peers consider evidence of intelligence. I come from a world where the facts don't shift around like they do for you, where the navel gazing and pontificating gets in the way of getting shit done. We were discussing late term abortions. I described what that entails. That made you uncomfortable and you told me I shouldn't make anyone feel bad. I should use fluffy bunny talk. I told you I disagree, that describing the act is exactly what needs to be said, not fluffy bunny words. To win your cause, you expanded it to include all abortions, when called on it you tried to justify late term abortions with a flat out lie about them being medically necessary. When that was disproved, you decided you'd accuse me of being angry.

So here are the facts, laid out simply and easy to follow:

1. The issue is late term abortions, where the baby is full term, on its way out of the birth canal.
2. This baby is grabbed by a doctor, a pair of scissors are stuck in its spine, and it's head is pulled off. Then it is dismembered, it's vital organs are harvested, and everything else is tossed in the trash.
3. This is almost never done for medical reasons, it is almost always done purely because a selfish little shit for brains girl didn't want to be bothered with a baby.

Dude, can you even follow yourself?

First of all, on your repetitive claim that "we" were discussing late term abortions and I expanded on it: when I brought up abortion, I did so to use it as an example of how people on the right side just as easily put the entire left collectively into a box. Some may limit their use of terms like "baby murderer" to target only those who believe elective late-term abortions are OK, others believe IUD's are murder weapons (i.e. you somehow committed murder even before getting pregnant), and there's many somewhere in between. You may be part of the first group, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean the other groups are suddenly no longer relevant to the discussion. So here's what's actually happened: "we" weren't discussing anything when I brought up the topic of abortion as part of a much broader discussion, and it's you who barged in and decided to make it only about late-term abortions. Not only that, you made it extremely specific to a case where the baby is full term. Sure, late-term abortion is a political term that has been criticised by doctors for being unscientific and suggestive of a pregnancy already past the due date, but it's mainly used to indicate abortions after the first trimester, though some limit its use to the third trimester. But I haven't seen any credible evidence that that has ever been done to a baby that was full term in the US, within the existing laws. Why would any sane doctor agree to that? Or why would a mother want that? Maybe it happens in criminal circles, I don't know.

And you keep repeating your fluffy bunny theory about me and call me dishonest, say that I have lied about something... Well ok, let's have a closer look at that:

1. The fluffy bunny term theory that you like to keep repeating: repeating it may make it true in your head, but that doesn't make it actually true. It is here black-on-white, in crystal clear language that I am against elective late-term abortions. To me, the abortion procedures that are used are a part of the reason why I am against elective late-term abortions (i.e. abortions after 21 weeks). If I'm having a serious conversation with someone who insists that elective late-term abortion should be allowed (especially all the way up to full term), and we end up at a point in the conversation where I explain why I am against it, then I'll bring those procedures up as a part of my reasons, and describe them myself if the other side appears to be clueless about them. But when I brought up abortion as an example and as part of a much broader issue that was being discussed, my intention was not to shove a graphic description of those procedures down the throat of anyone who might get to read them while going through this thread. Nobody here asked for that. As Phibes pointed out, some who stumble upon your descriptions here may have been involved one way or another with abortions, and for whom it may very well have been one of the most difficult things in their lives. On top of that, what are you trying to prove by posting those descriptions over and over again? It told you several times by now that I'm against elective late-term abortion, so what's the purpose? What are you trying to achieve here?

2. You claim that I lied, made something up about late-term abortions being medically necessary and that you disproved it. Here it's important to take a pause, especially given your apparent insistence to limit this to babies carried full term, and make very clear what I'm talking about here. As I mentioned above, late-term abortion is a political term, but is most commonly used to refer to abortions after the first trimester (after 21 weeks). As far as I know, there are US states that allow elective abortions up to 24 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong). In those states elective abortions up to 24 weeks may very well happen, so some of them will be after 21 weeks. Now, on to the paper you posted: in it, it is explained that definitions of medical necessity vary and are sometimes so broad that it is possible to get an abortion for medical reasons after the state's specific legal limit for elective abortion, for reasons that are practically the same as those given for elective abortions before the state's specific limit. I also quote the following from the paper: "However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,...". I never said anything about those definitions, which vary and are sometimes too broad (even here in Belgium, there are some parts of the definition of which I'm not yet sure I'm happy with). I also never made any claim about why most late-term abortions are performed, or why they are "most often performed for". Never. I said late-term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and they are sometimes medically necessary. One might argue that in the case of severe fetal abnormality, there isn't a strict necessity, and that's ok. But as an example in the specific case of an urgent need to intervene to save the mother's life: it happens that an abortion procedure is the logical choice at a point in the pregnancy where a fetus could theoretically already live outside the womb, whereas in practice the fetus has been affected by the mother's health condition which reduces its chances of survival to zero at the point where the intervention is necessary. So I don't know where you think that I lied about anything, or what you think I was dishonest about.

To some extent, the definition of medical necessity is always going to contain a certain grey area that is going to be a point of discussion. Especially when it comes to necessity, as it is typically broader than the extreme case I gave above. And those discussions are fine. Discussion and revision (e.g. to account for medical progress) is good to keep the definitions as clear as possible. I never expect a definition though, that will be accepted by everyone, and I have no intendion to start a battle on the details. If the definition is too broad however, and true medical necessity goes all but lost, that is regrettable, and then it has to be revised in those legislations. I also don't deny that that happens. But none of that means that medical necessity is completely fake and that a full abortion ban after 21 weeks (or whichever term you personally think is reasonable), is warranted.

And I thought I was verbose.

555!

(See? I'm perfectly capable of giving crisp, concise, to the point responses that are condensed to the maximum in order to achieve optimal transferral of information without the use of too many terms! Hold on... Maybe just one "5" would have been sufficient... I think this warrants some genuine philosophical reflection to make sure that an optimal level of crispness, conciseness, condenseness and to the point-ness has been achieved. After all, just one "5" could be interpreted as not really thinking your response was all that funny. Still, perhaps an optimal level of crispness, conciseness, condenseness and to the point-ness would have been achieved with "55" rather than "555". If that is true, then perhaps my "555" was not as free of verboseness as I thought. However it may be, if the right and left side in your country want to stop bickering, then you should really stop calling each other names over the perceived level of verboseness of the other side. I mean, come on, nobody on the left is really an over-verbose idiot and the majority does not really want to use so many words when they are discussing the many societal issues that are affecting your country. And nobody on the right really is an over-concise, super-condensed idiot. If you people are not going to find a way to have an adult conversation over this issue, then this is only going to get worse. And if it does, then you'll end up in a situation where both sides are going to slip further and further away towards their extremes on the verboseness scale. After a while, when reading topics here, the posts of those on the left will have evolved towards insanely long, unfocused posts, in which they are all over the map and it is has become impossible to extract anything meaningful. And the posts of those on the right will have evolved towards the other extreme and will be completely empty! They won't even have a signature line anymore!! ... oh wait ... ... ... never mind ... forget what I said! Nothing to see here! Carry on!!)