Ministry of Truth

boldwalker12 isn't a moderator on Politics, and her posts represent nothing more than her own personal views rather than official forum policy. She has even stated previously that this is a significant issue for her, noting that she participates here and on Politics strictly from the perspective of a regular user.

So, yes, while her behavior and one-sided arguments regarding the politics abortion debate don't constitute moderation, they aren't required to be either.

boldwalker12 said:So, what, you think I’m actually gonna sit here and slander you just because you decided to start dragging my name through the mud? Please. That sounds like way too much effort, and honestly, I've got better things to do with my time.

Am I being shady?

Alright, here it is, plain and simple:

This is just moving over from the Politics thread.
So, the local legend himself is kicking off this whole discussion. Let's get this party started.

Look, let's just get this straight once and for all: someone who kills a person is a murderer. It’s not exactly rocket science, and there isn't much room for debate here. So, I’m saying it for the hundredth and final time—anyone who insists on constantly pushing the narrative that abortion is the same thing as murder is basically just slapping a "murderer" label on doctors and women. Period.

So, is that clear enough for everyone now?

You need to realize that’s exactly what the pro-life movement fights for.
How am I supposed to state my view—that abortion is the killing of a living being and advocate for changing social and legal norms so these acts are sanctioned (to actually make them both normative and legally considered murder)—if the moderators won't let me speak or they just shut down my expression? I’m not looking to discuss abortion purely as a philosophy; I want to talk about it through the lens of politics, because the pro-life movement is inherently political.

The idea that certain topics are off-limits on a site like this goes against everything this platform stands for. Now, if I were just spouting nonsense for people to debunk, only to come back and troll them by playing dumb, that would be one thing. But that’s not what’s happening here.

I still don't get how people can't see—or maybe they do, and the moderators are just sitting on their hands waiting to make a call—that what Jessica Kelly4 is saying is the only logical way to handle this...

Like I said before, I'm pro-choice. It’s pretty common for me to get some side-eye when I read certain posts from the pro-life crowd.

If the reasoning was that we shouldn't allow any discussion regarding the politics abortion debate on "Politics," then fine. You could just move to "Religion" and say, look, we aren't discussing this under Politics because the current state law on the matter is settled enough...

But to have the topics available while simultaneously preventing one side from expressing the core principles behind their entire argument and the root of the conflict... that's just absurd... 🤷

Of course, it all comes down to how you frame it. Those are the subtle nuances we see in other threads and across the whole forum anyway—like the massive difference between saying "in my view, abortion is murder" and actually telling a woman who had an abortion, "you're a murderer."

lonebadger6 said:I still don't get how people can't see—or maybe they do, and the moderators are just sitting on their hands waiting to make a call—that what Jessica Kelly4 is saying is the only logical way to handle this...

Like I said before, I'm pro-choice. It’s pretty common for me to get some side-eye when I read certain posts from the pro-life crowd.

If the reasoning was that we shouldn't allow any discussion regarding the politics abortion debate on "Politics," then fine. You could just move to "Religion" and say, look, we aren't discussing this under Politics because the current state law on the matter is settled enough...

But to have the topics available while simultaneously preventing one side from expressing the core principles behind their entire argument and the root of the conflict... that's just absurd... 🤷

Of course, it all comes down to how you frame it. Those are the subtle nuances we see in other threads and across the whole forum anyway—like the massive difference between saying "in my view, abortion is murder" and actually telling a woman who had an abortion, "you're a murderer."

Come on, let’s not deal with these half-baked arguments. If you’re going to be that extreme, it would actually be more honest to just advocate for the right to openly call abortion murder and label the women and doctors involved as murderers. At least then we'd be playing with a full deck.

What you just wrote is frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. It’s basic logic: if you define an act as murder, then by definition, anyone performing that act is a murderer. It's not some deep mystery; it's just how language works.

But let's be clear: he didn't explicitly call women who have abortions murderers; he simply stated that abortion is murder.

🙄 🙄 🙄

slywolf45 said:Come on, let’s not deal with these half-baked arguments. If you’re going to be that extreme, it would actually be more honest to just advocate for the right to openly call abortion murder and label the women and doctors involved as murderers. At least then we'd be playing with a full deck.

What you just wrote is frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. It’s basic logic: if you define an act as murder, then by definition, anyone performing that act is a murderer. It's not some deep mystery; it's just how language works.

But let's be clear: he didn't explicitly call women who have abortions murderers; he simply stated that abortion is murder.

🙄 🙄 🙄

So you're saying that kind of rhetoric is acceptable in the politics abortion debate?
Is the pro-life side allowed to argue that a fetus is a living being and that abortion is effectively killing that being?
Because that’s the core argument used to lobby for changing social and legal norms.

Jessica Kelly4 said:So you're saying that kind of rhetoric is acceptable in the politics abortion debate?
Is the pro-life side allowed to argue that a fetus is a living being and that abortion is effectively killing that being?
Because that’s the core argument used to lobby for changing social and legal norms.

I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

slywolf45 said:I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

I've tried explaining it to the moderators every which way possible, but I'm stuck. The legal definition of killing is much narrower than the general one. In a legal framework, killing is a violation of the law; in a general sense, it's just taking the life of another living being.

The law states abortion is permitted up to a certain week, nothing more and nothing less.
So, I can't argue that it isn't legally allowed when it actually is.
Even if I tried, people on this forum would shut me down instantly without needing a moderator to step in.

But I can advocate for changing our laws and social norms. To do that, I need freedom of speech and expression. I need the right to say abortion should be banned because it's the act of killing a human being (followed by links, moral arguments, etc.). I can't just claim abortion should be banned because cutting fingernails is unpleasant.

Ultimately, I don't think the "you might offend someone" argument holds any water. I didn't wander into a parenting forum where the context is totally different; I came to a politics forum where you know exactly what kind of debate to expect. If someone is nursing fresh emotional wounds from an abortion, they probably won't be jumping into a politics abortion debate anyway.

slywolf45 said:I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

Bring some consistent logic to the table and we might actually have an interesting discussion.
That's the whole point of this platform, isn't it? 🤷

You can rant all you want, but the law is perfectly clear.

boldwalker12 said:Look, sure, they dehumanized them, but let’s get one thing straight: they dehumanized actual people. Not some minor flaws, not a strand of hair, and definitely not someone's fingernails. They dehumanized the entire human being. There is a massive distinction there. These were independent individuals—not some parasitic growths attached to someone else's body, sucking out nutrients while lacking the capacity to think or feel.
That whole line of reasoning is just completely invalid.
But honestly, this isn't the place to get into that specific debate.

If it doesn't belong here, why do you keep bringing it up? Besides, you actually called the man a 'liar.'

Is this how you all conduct yourselves on ZK, using some sort of "aggressive" style? Clearly, you aren't a moderator for Politics or Religion, where everyone manages their own affairs—this seems to be the standard of moderation you think is best.

*Speaking of moderation and how every subforum should be run by agreement, I think we all still remember that thread on PŽK. The moderators over there (ZK) tried to introduce a term that was a direct insult to an entire religious group, and the majority of users on PŽK were absolutely revolted by the idea. So, I wouldn't say anyone from that subforum is particularly qualified to weigh in on this matter in a completely different section.

.

slywolf45 said:You can rant all you want, but the law is perfectly clear.

Do I have the right to lobby for a change in the law?
Do I have the right to argue about it here on this forum?
Do I have the right to defend my points using logic acceptable in mainstream political debates?

Those are the fundamental questions.
What the law currently states is obvious; there's nothing left to debate there.

slywolf45 said:I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

Since we have to discuss abortion rather than moderation—it really depends on when the procedure occurs, because there are thousands upon thousands of examples (as seen in the links provided) where termination happens during late-stage pregnancy. In some places, that is even standard practice, so by medical definitions—not moral ones—we aren't talking about the same thing.

Here is how an official American site defines it, for instance:

An abortion (Latin: abruptio graviditatis) is a spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy by removing or expelling an embryo or fetus from the uterus before the human fetus is capable of life. It occurs due to fetal death or results in fetal death. An abortion can be spontaneous, caused by complications during pregnancy, or it can be induced.

To meet the definition of an abortion, it must occur before the 28th week of pregnancy, provided the fetus is less than 35 centimeters long and weighs less than 1000 grams.

These criteria aren't absolute, because in many cases, a fetus smaller than 35 cm and weighing less than 1000 g is capable of living.

Abortion has a long history and has been induced through many different methods, including herbal abortifacients, the use of sharp objects, physical trauma, and other traditional means. Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical techniques to induce abortion. Legality, frequency, and cultural views regarding abortion vary worldwide. In many parts of the world, debates persist between opponents and proponents of abortion regarding ethical and legal aspects. The approximate number of intentional abortions performed globally in 2003 was around 42 million, which was a decrease from nearly 46 million abortions performed in 1995.

link

.

So, nobody here is actually talking about "murder" in the sense of someone going to prison or receiving life behind bars for breaking the law. The question of abortion is far more complex than that and can be viewed from several angles—each one being equally legitimate: legal, medical, moral/ethical, sociological, religious, and many others.

.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Do I have the right to lobby for a change in the law?
Do I have the right to argue about it here on this forum?
Do I have the right to defend my points using logic acceptable in mainstream political debates?

Those are the fundamental questions.
What the law currently states is obvious; there's nothing left to debate there.

I wouldn't even call this a case of "changing the law."

If a fetus is, to put it secularly, "alive"—meaning capable of life (though official medicine only partially explains at which stage of pregnancy and fetal development that happens, since there is no absolute rule and every pregnancy is unique), then by all objective definitions, one could call that killing. And medicine will agree, and does agree, already.

If a termination is performed in the very early stages of pregnancy, then (according to some) it isn't.

(Since most women don't even know they're pregnant for at least a month or two—when exactly that happens, right? Because people rarely rush in for an abortion in those first two, three, or even twelve weeks, lol)

So, everything depends on when such a thing is done or how long women are permitted to have abortions.

Every country is a little different, and perhaps one should look at exactly how things stand in America regarding this, though the topic itself is obviously global and universal, not just some narrow "American problem"—depending on how the discussion on Politics is framed.

I assume the female forum member above has some evidence or excerpts regarding this exact point, since she mentions the "law."

p.s. Judging by the link above, the limit is 28 weeks. 28 weeks doesn't just mean the fetus is alive and capable of life, but that if it were born, it might possibly survive! Not always or as a rule, but possibly.
.

I saw someone somewhere comparing a fetus to a fingernail, and honestly, I just have to speak up because that really rubbed me the wrong way! I mean, nails don't just grow into living, breathing beings, right? And let’s be real, a fetus isn't some kind of plant either! Maybe it isn't considered a human being for those first nine months, but the only thing that would prevent it from becoming one is through killing. Regardless of whether you label it as "alive" or "not alive" at any specific stage, the only thing that changes that status is the act of killing itself—it’s all about that cause-and-effect relationship that you can't just judge by looking at a single moment in time.

It strikes me as so silly how people try to force these rigid legal definitions onto everything or throw around accusations and labels when what's happening is actually quite clear, don't you think? Why is there such a push to ban discussing this? It’s not against the law, but it is an action that results in a living thing ceasing to live. You can call it whatever makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, isn't a small child consuming "resources" pretty much the same way a fetus does? Except, you know, once they're out in the world!

And am I the only one noticing that nobody seems to be talking about why a woman is allowed to walk away from her responsibility to a child while a man isn't?

Personally, I don't spend much time reading about religion or politics, but I do feel compelled to point out that moderator decisions are almost always subjective, aren't they? That might be fine for a casual forum, but when you're talking about enforcing order, it just doesn't work that way! I’ve never heard a police officer, a judge, or anyone in our major institutions complaining that people are "demanding they act like robots." If someone can't remain objective and unbiased, then they shouldn't be given authority, because having that power means they have the ability to repress anyone with a different opinion and steer the whole conversation wherever they want.

There are already two separate threads going regarding the abortion debate, so let’s stick strictly to discussing moderator performance here.

The goal of this discussion is to push the moderators to loosen up on the abortion debate topics and stop stifling actual conversation.

Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Do I have the right to lobby for a change in the law?
Do I have the right to argue about it here on this forum?
Do I have the right to defend my points using logic acceptable in mainstream political debates?

Those are the fundamental questions.
What the law currently states is obvious; there's nothing left to debate there.

If the forum's policy is that you don't have that right, then you simply don't.
If the rules shift depending on which PDF document you happen to be reading, then so be it. You either respect the guidelines or you don't participate in the sub-forum. 🤷

It seems straightforward enough to me.
For instance, there are times when I might feel inclined to be quite insulting, but I refrain from doing so. If I were to lash out, I’d just end up with a warning. It's as simple as that.

northerntiger said:Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.

To back up claims like that, she really ought to provide a few links, otherwise, it just looks like trolling.

Besides, both the supermod and the PŽK admin have stated at least 300 times that we aren't looking for "accusations" or sweeping generalizations here—just bring some actual evidence or a link, plain and simple.

slywolf45 said:I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

Think about this: what if some researchers out in Australia suggest that post-birth abortion should be legalized until a child is two years old? If that trend hits the West and America tomorrow, will people suddenly change their vocabulary to protect themselves from being labeled?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/1...11-100411.full

What even defines a law? Are we supposed to just follow whatever is written down without question while we're on a forum? Laws aren't carved in stone; they shift constantly as Congress, the Government, and the public debate them. Why shouldn't we have those same debates here? It's like if the government decided to privatize the interstate highway system tomorrow—would talking about that be considered off-limits too? 🙏 😵

There are good laws and there are bad ones. You find laws passed by democracies, dictatorial regimes, totalitarian states, and any nation driven by specific ideologies. Isn't it a citizen's fundamental duty to speak up against injustice, even if that injustice has been officially signed into law? Since when did the excuse "it's the law, so shut up" become a valid reason to silence someone? 🙂

Let's call it what it is: plain and simple censorship. Period. The forum leadership seems very aligned with modern ideology, using their authority to muzzle others just because certain topics make their allies uncomfortable. This isn't limited to the politics abortion debate; I've already mentioned the suppression of discussions regarding the link between pedophilia and homosexuality, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

slywolf45 said:You can rant all you want, but the law is perfectly clear.

Sure, maybe it is, but then comes that one day after midnight when suddenly the law isn't so clear anymore, is it? The law doesn't actually define morality; it just sets a specific date, a specific hour, even a specific minute, marking the deadline before which they won't punish a "controversial" act—but once you cross that line, they'll come for you.

So, who exactly is being hypocritical here? Is it the person pointing out that legal reality, is it the one fighting tooth and nail for "the name that shall not be spoken," or is it the one pushing this whole agenda of politically correct speech and banning certain words, thoughts, or statements? 🤔

And honestly, why should I even care if some woman out there feels insulted by my comments regarding an act I have absolutely no way of knowing whether she actually committed or not? If she’s feeling offended, wouldn't that just suggest she feels guilty for something that happens to be "the thing you aren't allowed to say"?

😁

northerntiger said:Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.

I get why a site like Reddit would block sketchy links and bad arguments.
But that’s a whole different animal than the censorship you or slywolf45 are pushing for.