Censorship and Social Media

[Wisbech Eagle]

Legal or not, the procedure intentionally ends a human life and that is harm to the child. Essential the clinicians who carry this out are contradicting their oath to "do no harm"

If you want to continue this discussion feel free to create a new thread.

You cannot repeatedly make untrue statements and expect to go unchallenged! This is the kind of thing that discredits social media. So it’s relevant.

There’s two untrue statements above. As explained, whilst it might be your personal moral position it isn’t the legal position in the UK that an abortion ends a human life. The legal position being that a human life doesn’t exist until after viability. So as no child exists no harm is done and, in turn, no clinician breaks their oath.

 

[eaglesdare]

You cannot repeatedly make untrue statements and expect to go unchallenged! This is the kind of thing that discredits social media. So it’s relevant.

There’s two untrue statements above. As explained, whilst it might be your personal moral position it isn’t the legal position in the UK that an abortion ends a human life. The legal position being that a human life doesn’t exist until after viability. So as no child exists no harm is done and, in turn, no clinician breaks their oath.

The law permits abortion up to viability, it doesn't claim the unborn isn't a human life before then. Biology says otherwise, and intentionally ending that life is harm, oath or no oath.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

For once Wisbech I share your concerns, maybe more so.
AI is a big danger. From personal experience I have been on the wrong end of AI generated emails that have very cleverly rewritten my own words to try and connect me to some form of presumed scam. Luckily, I was awake enough to just about realise what was going on. Particularly when the 2nd, 3rd and subsequent similar emails arrived all slightly rewritten but saying the same thing.
Be warned.

The question is what can be done to stop it. Those who object to the moves to regulate social media platforms need to think long and hard about this. If, as they are, they are being flooded by posts from bots and AI generated videos that seek to mislead and spread distrust then surely we must intervene to control it?

Every other part of our world is regulated and subjected to laws. The online world has become like the Wild West was and is being ruthlessly exploited by those who wish us harm. Feeding the prejudices of the dissatisfied is an effective, and easy, way for them to achieve their goals.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The law permits abortion up to viability, it doesn't claim the unborn isn't a human life before then. Biology says otherwise, and intentionally ending that life is harm, oath or no oath.

You are just repeating false statements.

It doesn’t claim that the life isn’t human but it does claim it isn’t a human life! Somehow though I expect you are unable to recognise the essential difference. Until viability a human being doesn’t exist. Only after viability is personhood established. It’s the biology which has informed us of this.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You are just repeating false statements.

It doesn’t claim that the life isn’t human but it does claim it isn’t a human life! Somehow though I expect you are unable to recognise the essential difference. Until viability a human being doesn’t exist. Only after viability is personhood established. It’s the biology which has informed us of this.

Ahhh...the play on words to disguise and justify unborn sacrifice without guilt.

No....sorry, never going to happen.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Morality is a deeply personal and subjective concept. It guides your own view of what is right and wrong but it cannot be imposed by you on others.

Ethics are what society has collectively determined to be acceptable behaviour. Not by individuals like yourself. All of us. You hold personal opinions about morality. Legal abortion being ethically acceptable because society has decided that until a foetus has reached viability, the point at which survival outside the womb is possible, it has not become a human being. It is life that is human but not yet a human life.

There is great deal of misunderstanding about this by the strident anti abortion lobby, with many insults being tossed out. The truth is that no one is in favour of abortion. It’s a horrible thing to even contemplate, let alone go through. Many women are emotionally scarred for life so, from every viewpoint, it’s a procedure that must always be the last resort, the least worse option of a series of bad options.

In the UK in 2023 there were 591, 072 live births and 277,970 abortions. As a last resort that's quite a ratio.

 

[eaglesdare]

You are just repeating false statements.

It doesn’t claim that the life isn’t human but it does claim it isn’t a human life! Somehow though I expect you are unable to recognise the essential difference. Until viability a human being doesn’t exist. Only after viability is personhood established. It’s the biology which has informed us of this.

UK law doesn't claim "no human life" pre-viability. It permits ending one. It is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it.

 

[grumpymort]

In the UK in 2023 there were 591, 072 live births and 277,970 abortions. As a last resort that's quite a ratio.

Source in which those statistics came from?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Source in which those statistics came from?

Births from the ONS.

https://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-responds-to-the-latest-abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales/

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Ahhh...the play on words to disguise and justify unborn sacrifice without guilt.

No....sorry, never going to happen.

There is no “play” on words. There is an objective, science based, unemotional definition designed to establish a set of guidelines.

The play on words comes solely from the unreasoning anti abortion in any circumstances lobby. Describing an unviable foetus as “unborn” is exactly that. An emotional play on words.

We all dislike abortion and want its need reduced to as near zero as possible. So let’s take the emotion out and start taking positive steps towards achieving that.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

UK law doesn't claim "no human life" pre-viability. It permits ending one. It is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it.

It’s expressed in other terms. Our law says that a foetus has no legal rights until a person is born. Until then only the mother has rights.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

In the UK in 2023 there were 591, 072 live births and 277,970 abortions. As a last resort that's quite a ratio.

It is and is something I think we all, as a society, ought to be ashamed of. There is much to be done. Whilst the vast majority of them will be in the very early stages that is still no excuse for such ignorance and carelessness. When there are effective alternatives available to stop a pregnancy occurring they must be morally preferable.

 

[eaglesdare]

It’s expressed in other terms. Our law says that a foetus has no legal rights until a person is born. Until then only the mother has rights.

It is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it 👍

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it 👍

Of course it isn’t!

Unless you regard every medical procedure as “harm”!

You are entitled to your opinion and can repeat it endlessly but that doesn’t change anything. No clinician would undertake a task that either the law, or they, regard as causing harm. That’s what matters. Not your opinion.

 

[eaglesdare]

Of course it isn’t!

Unless you regard every medical procedure as “harm”!

You are entitled to your opinion and can repeat it endlessly but that doesn’t change anything. No clinician would undertake a task that either the law, or they, regard as causing harm. That’s what matters. Not your opinion.

Like I said it is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it 👍

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Like I said it is still harm caused by clinicians however you look at it 👍

Like I said, of course it isn’t, no matter how often you repeat it.

If you were a clinician who shared your opinion you wouldn’t be asked to perform these procedures.

People who hold your views are respected.

It’s just a pity you are incapable of reciprocating.

 

[eaglesdare]

Like I said, of course it isn’t, no matter how often you repeat it.

If you were a clinician who shared your opinion you wouldn’t be asked to perform these procedures.

People who hold your views are respected.

It’s just a pity you are incapable of reciprocating.

Regardless of the law. It is still harm caused by clinicians to the baby however you look at it.

 

[georgenorman]

Regardless of the law. It is still harm caused by clinicians to the baby however you look at it.

Call it what it is, child murder - celebrated by the likes of Wisbech and the rest of the Left moral bankrupts.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It is and is something I think we all, as a society, ought to be ashamed of. There is much to be done. Whilst the vast majority of them will be in the very early stages that is still no excuse for such ignorance and carelessness. When there are effective alternatives available to stop a pregnancy occurring they must be morally preferable.

I agree and it's such an emotive subject it's hard to be objective.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Regardless of the law. It is still harm caused by clinicians to the baby however you look at it.

It’s no wonder you admire Trump!

Repeating a lie endlessly in the expectation that some will believe it is straight out of his playbook.

If there isn’t a “baby” then no harm to one is possible. Whatever you believe that’s the accepted definition in our country.