Posts by silvereagle16

Cuka has joined the thread, looking like yet another member of the Orwellian Thought Police who suddenly remembered "rules" exist just so they can decide how to treat anyone who isn't pro-choice. Quoting Cuka:

You better back this up with actual arguments, or we aren't talking.

Look, I want you to speak up and have an opinion, but I don't want you passing off information that you can't actually defend........that’s all. So far, you haven't provided much of an argument at all.

And I’m not asking for anything specific or difficult; copying a link is basic discussion etiquette, and quoting from that link is standard procedure for this forum—it’s clearly stated in rule this pdf.

Here are those quotes from the literature I cited in my previous post. This is what a properly supported argument looks like:

It is now accepted that the word embryo, as currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8 weeks' from fertilization'.

The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution.

You can also find info from these same sources here regarding the discredited recapitulation theory.

Listen, Cuka, you say you don't want people "passing off information they can't defend." Fine. Why don't you defend the things that have been posted here for years?
Provide some professional embryology literature claiming an embryo isn't a human.
Provide some professional embryology literature claiming an embryo isn't a human being.
Explain why north wind has spent years calling "recapitulation theory" the "theory of evolution."

I'll quote north wind, since she's been flooding this thread with these exact points for ages:

The fact that an embryo is a human zygote and not a "person" isn't my claim, it's science based on evolution. Essentially, to become a person, it still has to develop. And it develops in a woman's womb. Otherwise, if it were already a "person," it wouldn't need to undergo development inside someone else's body. Those are established facts.

Yes, I mention evolution because that's where the evidence lies. What you're presenting as "proof" is just plain old creationism. To me, that proves nothing. The proof is in evolutionary theory, so go grab an embryology textbook and study it... I'm not going to hunt down literature for you.

So, Cuka, why don't you try arguing against this years-long spam and trolling? Go ahead and name that "embryology textbook" north wind keeps mentioning.

Go ahead, Cuka, explain the mental gymnastics north wind uses when she spams this thread saying: "An embryo is a zygote, not a person."

A zygote, an embryo, or an embryon are synonyms. So, logically, her statement boils down to: "An embryo is an embryo, not a person." If you apply the definition from the literature I provided above, you end up with: "A person is a person, not a person." 🤣

Another user pretty much laid it all out in that thread, which allowed Ged Earthse to take those points and "logically" conclude that a pile of crap is actually a human being.

You’re just throwing Cuka and those "peer-reviewed" studies at me that Ged Earthse used to back his claims. When I actually pressed him for the citations, he couldn't produce a single one—he just started dodging and burying me under a mountain of questions. It's a classic deflection tactic. just another internet troll.).
He pulled the exact same stunt when I asked him to back up his claims with actual embryology textbooks.

It’s stifling in here. All right. If you want to argue that abortion isn't a human right, you’re going to have a hard time countering North Wind's claims. You'll need more than just an opinion; I'm looking for a specific ruling from the ECHR to back that up.

While you're busy lecturing a female forum member for being anti-abortion, others are dropping links to 2012 articles about Savita Halappanavar, claiming she died because of Ireland's abortion ban. Now you’re going to try to argue your point by... You can find the link to the official investigation into that case in the post above..

You’re going to argue with Cuka and keep up that multi-year streak of trolling and calling out certain forum members for being "ineffective." Catholic contraception. It’s an old debate, but the core friction remains the same..

This is just the tip of the iceberg; you'll have to explain what you actually mean by that. Just another internet troll..

By the way, I’m just one of those people who refuses to look the other way when it comes to how common abortions actually are among women. The only choice left. When a government fails to uphold the social and economic rights it's fundamentally obligated to protect, it’s essentially a breach of its own social contract. Pro-choice.I can't exactly call a lack of choice "pro-choice." It’s like when you call someone out for not respecting women—do you actually respect the entire moderation team running this PDF?

Cuk claims there are "rules" buried in the policy PDF and says he isn't interested in "sharing information that can't be argued."

Alright Cuk, since KLCCLK is unable to provide them and I’ve already cited European Court of Human Rights rulings that prove him wrong, why don't you step up? Do you actually have any ECHR rulings that back up what KLCCLK wrote in his follow-up post—the one he posted right after banning me? Since you're so against "sharing information that can't be argued," let's see what you've got.

lonebadger6 said:Fortunately, this turns out to be the last time, too.

You’ve never actually explained a single card. It’s easy enough to hand one out, but you clearly struggle with the reasoning behind it—probably because there isn't any.

Thanks for the effort, but that one line makes you sound like an actor in a stage play who hasn't read the script. Here’s a quote of yours from the banned section:

Nah, that's not irony. What you're describing is sarcasm—two completely different things—but you still missed the mark there. - lonebadger6

The Orwellian Thought Police always seem to push the same old lines, just dressed up in different outfits.

It’s pure irony. Irony isn't just a literary device; it's the fundamental mechanism of the universe. It’s that bitter gap between what we expect to happen and the messy reality that actually hits us. Think of it like a driver checking their GPS only to realize they've been circling a parking lot for twenty minutes while staring at the map—it's the mismatch between intention and outcome.
Sarkazam - Sarcasm is essentially a verbal mask—a way to say one thing while clearly signaling that you mean the exact opposite. It’s less about being direct and more about using irony to highlight how ridiculous a situation or a statement actually is. Think of it like a linguistic shrug; you aren't just delivering information, you're adding a layer of skepticism to it. While it can be used to sharpen a wit, it's often just a cynical tool used to point out the obvious flaws in someone else's logic.

Irony is basically just a linguistic tool where the actual meaning is either buried under the surface or stands in direct opposition to what’s being said literally.
Sarcasm is just irony turned up to eleven. It’s biting, sharp, and meant to sting.

In everyday conversation, irony and sarcasm often blur together. You rarely hear people break them down with textbook definitions, but the distinction is simple: sarcasm is essentially just irony with a sharper, more offensive edge.

It isn’t exactly a "completely different thing," despite what you're claiming. Haeckel’s discredited recapitulation theory is fundamentally distinct from Darwin’s theory of evolution, even if the users you protect through your moderation tend to conflate them inaccurately.

It’s just like how the Orwellian crowd rebrands recapitulation theory as evolutionary theory. They do the same thing with human rights. It’s the classic wolf in sheep's clothing tactic used to manipulate the Orwellian Thought Police.

O'Rahilly and Müller's work in Human Embryology & Teratology (2001).

Moore, Persaud, and Torchia's *The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology* (2019 edition).

Moore, Persaud, and Torchia's *Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects* (2019).

That’s exactly why lonebadger6 got banned—scientific facts tend to bruise fragile ideologies. It's just a way to make sure people actually see what's happening behind the scenes.

Scientific literature from world-renowned embryologists dating from 2001 to 2019 is dismissed by the Orwellian Thought Police as nothing more than "fifty-year-old books that are mostly out of print." Yet, they continue to peddle their lies on this very topic, all while under the watchful eye of "moderator" lonebadger6.

There goes lonebadger6 again. What exactly makes that post "trolling"? Understanding legal positivism and its fallout is basic literacy, not some kind of provocation. Just a reminder: according to the European Court of Human Rights, the legal status of an unborn child remains unresolved (look at the precedents in France or ABC v. Ireland—the ECHR case law is pretty definitive here), which brings us right back to the margin of appreciation doctrine.

I’m hoping lonebadger6 actually has a rational argument this time to explain why that post qualifies as trolling.

I see the moderator still hasn't provided a rationale for their decision, so I'm holding out hope they eventually will.

Also, the moderator KLCCLK, or perhaps an admin or some impartial third party, should look into this decision. It’s not just about the unjust ban; it’s about the fact that they jumped into the fray to push their own views, which are objectively wrong. A post from the moderator that essentially circles back to my previous point.

No legal system should have the power to force someone to stay married when they simply don't want to be.

I suspect moderator KLCCLK might have heard the term "democracy" before, considering we actually live in a democratic system, right? For instance:

The Democratic Party in Ireland didn't legalize divorce until after a 1995 referendum passed with just 50.3% of the vote. Similarly, the Democratic Party in Malta waited until 2011 to do the same via a 53% referendum margin. Even Ireland saw a failed attempt back in 1986 when 63% voted against it. That’s what people call a democracy—it's just how the system works.

Following World War II, democratic nations established the European Court of Human Rights under the Council of Europe to oversee fundamental human rights protections.

That same democratic court made it clear: there is no inherent right to divorce under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ultimately, democratic nations remain free to decide whether they will permit or restrict divorces, regardless of someone's simple desire to end a marriage. }']The Johnston case at the European Court of Human Rights serves as a stark reminder that legal frameworks often lag behind moral reality. It’s a classic example of how institutional inertia can clash with individual rights under the European Convention.Take cases like Babiarz v. Poland (n° 1955/10), Andrzej PIOTROWSKI v. Poland (n° 8923/12), and F. v. Switzerland (n° 11329/85), for example.

So, I’m still not quite following where you got that "not a single system" part from.

Decisions like this should stay strictly between the people actually in the marriage, not some bureaucratic commission or government system.

Since the ECHR doesn't force democratic nations to follow a single set of rules—as the European Court of Human Rights has made clear—every democracy maintains its own distinct approach to divorce. You should probably look into how different state laws actually work before making claims that just aren't accurate.

There are marriage counseling options available for those who actually want them.

It’s unclear which "system" you’re actually referring to here, but if you mean American legislation, there isn't much I can say other than suggesting you go do some actual research. Family law. Who exactly is debunking you?

Marriage mediation is mandatory if there’s a minor child involved. Additionally, under Article 42, a spouse can't even file for divorce while the wife is pregnant or until their child reaches one year old. It's like trying to run a marathon while you're still recovering from surgery—the law just won't let you move.
Article 43 states that the court will grant a divorce under specific conditions. Since there are only three distinct scenarios listed, it’s clear that if you can't reach a mutual agreement, a divorce isn't a guaranteed outcome.

In democratic nations, you see similar patterns: some have more liberal laws while others are more restrictive, but that’s just how democracy functions.

The moderator KLCCLK is clearly just pushing their own agenda. They won't even bother to look at the sources I provided, let alone the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights or the actual American family law.

Please remove this strike; it’s completely unjustified. It would be a matter of basic decency if moderator KLCCLK actually cited their sources for these opinions, especially since they’re actively participating in the debate while simultaneously handing out penalties—something they should have left to an unbiased moderator instead.

There isn’t any "trolling" going on here, let alone anything "intense." Everything is laid out clearly in the article I linked and within the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.

Note: This isn't an appeal or anything of the sort, just a question regarding the moderation standards laid out in the Politics PDF. My primary question is for the moderators, though I’m open to others sharing their experiences with these rules.

@Nica argued that "different PDFs might have different criteria, so don't try to compare them..." which effectively shut down a ban appeal (I won't link it here since it's unrelated to this thread).

So, my first question: why can't we compare them when there are clearly general Reddit rules that apply to the entire site?

I'm looking at three specific criteria:

Criterion1, from Eck Strile:

Criticizing material—regardless of who produced it—isn't just allowed, it's necessary. The key is having actual arguments to back up the critique, which should be common sense. It's not an issue to state that something is factually wrong, provided you have solid reasoning. Reducing an argument to "this is a product of [ideology], therefore it's garbage" isn't a real argument.

Criterion2, from @L3go:

Of course you can say you don't like something; nobody is stopping you from doing that in a few posts. But you hammered on about how pathetic BB is and how stupid everyone watching is for ten posts straight.

Initially, posts were just being deleted because you went too far, but you kept pushing it, which is why you got a warning.

Criterion3, from @Aese:

You got a warning because you targeted a female user, insulting her while clearly knowing you were doing it just to provoke a negative reaction.

Since the Politics PDF "might have different criteria," one obvious question remains.

To put it simply, my second question is: does the Politics PDF actually permit users to engage in behavior that falls under Criterion1, Criterion2, and Criterion3? I would appreciate a confirmation for each individual criterion.

By decision of the Politics moderation team, you will receive a partial ban from the Politics section. Stop calling out other users—that’s what moderators are for. Stick to the topic and stop flooding every thread you join with links that barely relate to the discussion.

It’s worth pointing out that almost all complaints on the PŽK board are handled the same day, sometimes within minutes. Yet here, there's still no concrete or clear explanation regarding what exactly makes these posts controversial. Instead, the "Politics moderation team" just deletes posts and censors content. When that doesn't work, they resort to threats of bans.

So, it starts with censorship and blackmail. Then, they either cook up some "justification" after the fact or simply offer nothing at all.

I have several complaints sitting on the PŽK board for quite a while now regarding censorship that haven't been addressed. It's much like how my appeals against warnings go ignored for months.

To summarize. A Redditor. Ask a question.Every time I try to reply, my post gets nuked. Apparently, I’m the one going "off topic," even though her question actually stays on track.

Another forum user posts. [Link] I'll stick to the statistics. I’ll stick strictly to what’s written in that document.So, I'm the one going "off topic" and getting my posts deleted, while hers stay up without a problem.

Some people just can't help themselves—they start threads that have nothing to do with the topic and then act surprised when they get hit with a moderator warning.

Charles Fox10 Charles Fox10 said:We’re talking about Ireland—specifically the referendum—not what abortion is, what kids eat, how many diapers they need, or what those costs look like. Got it?

It looks like I'm being labeled as off-topic, even though my points don't actually have anything to do with that—which is exactly what I stated:

silvereagle16 As if we haven't seen this movie before.
Why bother dragging this out with endless calculations when the conceptual distinction between ES and OR is already crystal clear? No matter what the final number turns out to be, we're just spinning our wheels.

So, I’m constantly being called out. Apparently, my posts are "subjective and biased," and I’m just "rambling," "trolling," or "talking nonsense." It's the same old routine.

So, we’ve got someone constantly calling people out, using lines like "I think differently, everything else is just garbage," "you're just rambling," or "you're trolling." I guess that’s what passes for objectivity and being unbiased these days.

It turns out I’m being accused of "calling someone out," simply because I claimed I was being misinterpreted. 🤣

Charles Fox10 said:The subject here is Ireland and its referendum, nothing more—I made that clear from the start. This isn't about abortion, and that distinction should be obvious. Posts that strayed off-topic or violated the PDF rule have been removed. As far as Politics goes, this conversation ends here. It’s not censorship; it’s just moderating to ensure we stay within the scope of the original post.

I should also mention, this post of mine is simply answering a question a user asked. Is her question "off topic"? And am I somehow to blame for that? The quoted posts that were deleted were addressing that exact same question. And to reiterate, there are still plenty of other users posting about the same thing right here in the thread.

Charles Fox10 said:The subject here is Ireland and its referendum, nothing more—I made that clear from the start. This isn't about abortion, and that distinction should be obvious. Posts that strayed off-topic or violated the PDF rule have been removed. As far as Politics goes, this conversation ends here. It’s not censorship; it’s just moderating to ensure we stay within the scope of the original post.

Let's cut to the chase here. Point out which of the posts cited above are actually off-topic and why. Also, specify exactly which subforum rules they supposedly broke.

Just to be clear, I didn't start these tangents; I was simply responding to others who were dragging the discussion away from the main point. If my replies are being deleted, there's no logical reason for the original off-topic comments to remain. It feels less like moderation and more like selective enforcement when I'm being singled out while everyone else continues the same debate.

Charles Fox10 said:The subject here is Ireland and its referendum, nothing more—I made that clear from the start. This isn't about abortion, and that distinction should be obvious. Posts that strayed off-topic or violated the PDF rule have been removed. As far as Politics goes, this conversation ends here. It’s not censorship; it’s just moderating to ensure we stay within the scope of the original post.

Right here in this thread, there is a post making the exact same points as my quoted posts above:

u prolazu said:That’s not true... America has never had better maternal mortality statistics... and our demographic outlook has never looked worse.

Maternal mortality is really more of a gauge for how well a society's healthcare system actually functions.
In the US, for example, that rate is much lower than in Russia, where it sits at 25 per 100,000... and abortion is legal in both places.

Here’s a little trivia... guess which country has the lowest maternal mortality rate? It's Poland!!

The difference is that I provided sources and statistics to back my claims. Everyone else seems allowed to argue about it, so why am I being singled out?

I got banned here, so I’m just quoting the post:

KLCCLK Charles Fox10 said:Hey silvereagle16,

You’ve just picked up an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------
The Reddit moderation team has decided to issue you a warning regarding your conduct on the Politics board. Stop calling out other users—that’s what the mods are here for. Stick to the topic at hand instead of flooding every thread you join with links that barely even relate to the discussion.
-------

This violation carries a 35-point penalty and could lead to restricted access for the duration of the term. Just like a serious criminal record, major infractions stay on your file permanently.

Original Post:
The conversation on Reddit is moving in circles again. It’s like watching a broken record play in an empty room.

Quote: shtefy Charles Fox10 said:Look, this is my field of expertise. I don't see how any of this is relevant. To be honest, I haven't even skimmed half the links and copy-pastes you sent, and for the exact reason I mentioned before. As for you being tedious and exhausting? That's a separate issue entirely. An insult.It’s not an attack; it's just a plain observation of how you affect me.

I wasn't calling it an insult; I was pointing out that it's an ad hominem.

shtefy Charles Fox10 said:I have a kid, so I actually know what it means to raise one. In practice. The rest is just a pile of garbage.

This is the same thing. An ad hominem attack is just a cheap way to dodge the actual argument. It’s like trying to win a debate about car engines by insulting the mechanic's haircut..

Ad hominem—Latin for "to the person"—is just a fancy way of describing an attack directed at the individual rather than the actual argument they're making. That's essentially what an ad hominem fallacy is—trying to dodge the actual argument by attacking the person making it instead of the facts they're presenting. It's like ignoring the quality of a car just because you don't like the salesperson.

Whether you think I’m being "boring," "rambling," or just ignoring your points—or if you want to dismiss my personal experience as mere anecdote—none of that actually touches the core of my argument.

shtefy Charles Fox10 said:Look, this is my professional field. I don't see how that's even relevant.

Someone who actually works in this field shouldn't be misinterpreting what I wrote. There's a direct connection here.

All the best,
Reddit

Who exactly am I "calling out"? This user admitted herself she isn't even considering my arguments; she's just spent the entire debate throwing out ad hominem attacks. As for the "circumstances" mentioned in the opening post, she claims they are "irrelevant."

I've laid out my positions clearly. When someone presents an actual argument, you don't respond with "well, I personally feel differently," or "everything else is garbage," or "you're being annoying," or "you're just rambling." That's the definition of an ad hominem attack.

I politely pointed out that she was misinterpreting my posts. If she wants to hold her ground, she should try arguing her position with something more substantial than "I disagree, therefore everything else is nonsense."

Go ahead—point out which specific posts of mine "have nothing to do with the topic," and tell me who exactly started these "off-topic" tangents.

Stop targeting other users; that's what the moderators are for.

A handful of other users have been targeting me constantly throughout this thread. Go find the posts where they're accusing me of trolling ("troll," "you're trolling," etc.).
Does moderation not apply to them? Are they exempt from the rules? As far as I can see, their posts are still up and haven't been deleted.

And let's not forget the insults like "you're rambling," "you're full of it," or "you're boring."

I haven't done any of that, not once.

Don't flood every thread you participate in with links that mostly have nothing to do with the subject matter.

If it’s relevant to the topic, I quote it and provide a summary following the subforum's rules.

It's easy for moderators to claim something is "off-topic" or "violates the rules." However, there is a burden of proof. They haven't specified which rules were broken, what exactly is considered off-topic, or who initiated these off-topic tangents in the first place.

Charles Fox10 said:The subject here is Ireland and its referendum, nothing more—I made that clear from the start. This isn't about abortion, and that distinction should be obvious. Posts that strayed off-topic or violated the PDF rule have been removed. As far as Politics goes, this conversation ends here. It’s not censorship; it’s just moderating to ensure we stay within the scope of the original post.

I am quoting what you previously quoted from the opening post:

After Michael Martin, leader of the Democratic Party—the main opposition party in Ireland—stated he would support the referendum to repeal the ban on abortion, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar announced recently that his governing party and he personally will vote to end the constitutional ban on abortion in almost all circumstances, including cases of rape, incest, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

Those specific circumstances are part of the topic too. It isn't just a simple "are you for or against" abortion debate; it’s specifically tied to the situation in Ireland.

Another post discussing specific "circumstances"—addressing how the original question was framed—has been deleted:

Silver Bear said:Do you support a total ban on abortion, a ban in only certain cases, or should it be completely legal?

Quoting yet another censored post:

According to research from the Guttmacher Institute, nearly all abortions occur because having a child would be "inconvenient, too expensive, or too difficult to manage." Based on this data, none of the respondents cited the woman's health as the reason.
Quote:

From a strictly medical standpoint, there isn't a pregnancy complication that a C-section couldn't address. But research shows that health issues aren't the reason most women get abortions anyway. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute (which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood), most abortions happen because having a child would be inconvenient, too costly, or simply too hard to handle. In that study, 1,209 American women were surveyed at 11 major abortion clinics, and they revealed that neither health problems, rape, incest, nor pressure from family or partners were the main or even secondary drivers. Ninety-two percent of women said social or 'other' factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent mentioned physical issues or potential health problems with the infant, and a mere 0.5% said they sought an abortion due to rape. Not a single person in the survey claimed they had an abortion because the mother's life was at risk. Medically speaking, the only thing truly threatening a mother's life is an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg gets lodged in the fallopian tube): The only medical emergency that would actually put the mother's life in danger is an ectopic pregnancy, which is terminated extremely early on. So despite the argument by abortion advocates that health risks are one of the central reasons for seeking an abortion, the Planned Parenthood study revealed something strikingly different — that women most often choose abortion because they perceive it to be the easier choice. (Source: ActionforLife.com) Essentially, women most frequently opt for abortion because it's the path of least resistance. An abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, claims he has seen zero cases where an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life. “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.” It's simple logic. He ended the pregnancy via C-section, ensuring both the mother and the infant survived.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@silvereagle16
Look, let's stay focused... the topic here is abortion.
That whole referendum in Ireland is just a side note...

Exactly. The subject is abortion. Specifically those "circumstances" I mentioned, which some users here seem determined to dismiss as irrelevant. Those circumstances apply to abortion in general, though we can certainly look at Ireland specifically since the opening post focused on the Irish referendum, just as the moderator noted.

Please provide the explanation for censoring this post, just like you did for the previous one.

Quote: The north wind blows. said:It’s a proven fact. Maternal mortality rates are significantly higher in countries with restrictive abortion laws. You should take a look at the UNDP data on this: The UNPD document highlights how maternal mortality remains a critical issue globally, particularly within developing regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. It suggests that the correlation between strict abortion laws and higher maternal death rates is often tied more to broader issues—like the general availability and quality of healthcare services—than the legal restrictions themselves.

What exactly has been proven here? Take a look at what silvereagle16 had to say:

Just passing through. said:You’d need to prove to me first that criminalizing the practice would actually keep illegal abortion rates at a level where they, along with their consequences, could meaningfully impact demographic trends.

If you look at that document you linked, it clearly states that fertility rates are significantly higher in countries with restrictive abortion laws.

It’s an observable trend: birth rates tend to climb in nations where abortion access is strictly limited. Back in 2013, the numbers told a pretty clear story: in nations where abortion is strictly limited, teen pregnancy rates were roughly triple those seen in more liberal countries—about 69 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 versus just 24. It’s much like seeing a massive gap in any other metric when you compare different regulatory environments. Even the total fertility rate followed this trend, sitting significantly higher at 3.22 children per woman in restrictive regions compared to 1.97 in the more permissive ones.

It’s also worth noting that countries struggling with low birth rates are actively rolling out incentives to boost fertility.

As birth rates continue their steady slide, more and more governments are scrambling to roll out new policies aimed at boosting fertility. Between 1996 and 2013, the number of governments pushing to boost birth rates nearly doubled, jumping from 14% to 27%. Meanwhile, those implementing policies to curb fertility stayed stuck in place, creeping only from 42% to 43%. It’s like watching one side of a scale finally start to move while the other stays bolted to the floor.

This is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Policies designed to boost fertility shouldn't have anything to do with abortion.

Since you're bringing up "maternal mortality," the document you linked explicitly states there's a connection between "restrictive abortion policies and The maternal mortality ratio reflects The positive Association between levels of development and The availability and quality of maternal health Care services , since countries in developing regions tend."

Quote : The strong positive Association between restrictive abortion policies and The maternal mortality ratio reflects The positive Association between levels of development and The availability and quality of maternal health Care services , since countries in developing regions tend

It also points out that while "maternal mortality" is dropping globally, it stays a major issue in developing nations, particularly in places where medical care is either hard to find or just poor quality, like
:

Quote : Although maternal mortality Has been declining in most countries around The World , IT remains a concern for many countries in developing regions , especially in sub-Saharan Africa and in Southern Asia

Between 2005 and 2013, the percentage of nations viewing maternal mortality rates as unacceptable dropped from 69% to 62%. This shift happens when healthcare becomes more accessible or improves in quality. The legality of abortion itself plays a much smaller role here.

You can see this in the example I used earlier regarding developed nations—it doesn't matter if their abortion laws are restrictive or liberal. Even in wealthy countries, maternal mortality can spike if a surge in demand for abortion services overwhelms the system and drives down the quality of care. This is an even bigger hurdle for developing nations:

Also, consider this statement from Jeanne E. Head, R. N. , U.S. Representative:

Quote : “ Women generally AT risk because They lack access to a doctor , Hospital

The same thing could happen in Ireland if their healthcare system isn't prepared for a sudden spike in demand for those services.

Sam Alvarez4 said:I can't really reply in the thread since you don't answer warnings over at @mod, so I'm posting here instead.
It's annoying, honestly... just eyesore territory.

Just wanted to point out that:
"The topic is something else entirely, even if it touches on abortion." (@cuka) is a total contradiction, considering the opening post ends with this question:
"Do you support banning abortion in all cases, banning it only in certain cases, or would you allow abortion completely?"

In short...
The policy (sic!) in the PDF asks commenters in which scenarios they would allow or ban fetal abortion, and then @mod issues a warning saying the topic isn't about abortion.
Then what on earth *is* the topic?! 🤔

Just to clear up any confusion, I've already written about this on the thread...

I’ve already written about this before. Right from the start.A handful of people here tried to dismiss this as irrelevant, trolling, or just plain propaganda, all to steer the conversation off course. I won't even bother bringing up the ad hominem attacks.

The moderator is in. A moderator warning. Quoting the second part of the intro post, which makes the exact same point about those "circumstances":

Now that Michael Martin, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party in Ireland, has signaled his support for the referendum to repeal the abortion ban, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar recently announced that both he and the ruling party intend to vote in favor of stripping the constitutional ban on abortion. In almost every scenario—even cases involving rape, incest, or fatal fetal abnormalities.

Just to reiterate, we're talking about Ireland and the referendum there. In Ireland, the Constitution recognizes the equal right to life of the mother and her unborn child. It would be helpful if people actually stayed on topic, and if the moderators focused on managing the discussion rather than just censoring it.

This post I was quoting has also been deleted:

Quote: shtefy said:Unsafe abortions have existed since the beginning of sex and unwanted pregnancies. And when both parties—the provider and the person seeking it—have plenty of reasons to stay quiet, you can't really hold much over their heads.

This has already been answered over here. Some people just keep repeating the same thing from thread to thread. Should something be legalized just because people will go ahead and do it illegally anyway? You can't just ignore the consequences.

shtefy said:I honestly wonder if punishment has ever actually stopped someone from committing a crime (and I'm intentionally avoiding the word "crime" because this is about bodily autonomy and the right to choose)? Unless, of course, you're a devout Catholic. And since they make up 86% of the population here, I guess we don't need to worry about abortion at all.

A fetus isn't "one's own body"—it isn't part of the woman's physical anatomy. That's high school biology 101. We aren't talking about "bodily autonomy" here; we are talking about an unborn child.

Just to be clear, we are discussing the situation in Ireland, where the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland recognises The equal right to Life of The Mother and Her unborn child:
:

The Eighth Amendment of The Constitution of Ireland recognises The equal right to Life of The Mother and Her unborn child. This amendment created a constitutional recognition of an unborn child’s life and so makes it impossible for any government to introduce legislation allowing for terminations in the womb except in exceptional circumstances. It was effected by the Eighth Amendment of The Constitution Act, 1983, which was approved by referendum on 7 September 1983 and signed into law on the 7th of October of the same year.

Can someone explain why this topic is being so obviously censored? Both this post and the previous one.