Censorship is back?

Well, it appears my posts—which actually contained logical arguments and a legitimate link to an NBC article—have once again been scrubbed by the censors.

feralranger said:

north wind said:I really don't understand the eye-rolling here, especially when you've positioned yourself as if you have some inherent right to dictate what happens during someone else's pregnancy.

No group of "medical experts" can, or should ever be allowed to, make reproductive decisions on behalf of a woman—or the life within her—unless we are living in some dystopian nightmare straight out of The Handmaid's Tale".🙄
Furthermore, I fail to see where you get the notion that anyone else possesses a superior claim to decide the fate of another person's offspring.😲

What you're claiming is simply incorrect. According to current medical ethics standards, if a procedure does not result in a fatality, doctors are professionally obligated to preserve life. Link

Given the advanced technology being discussed by our colleague, an abortion would no longer equate to ending a life; rather, applying the very same protocols doctors are bound to follow—as evidenced by this link—would mandate them to save that life.

and:

feralranger said:

north wind said:I wasn't even suggesting that, nor did I dispute it.

The gentleman was specifically referring to the extraction of embryos from a woman's body to be transferred into "artificial wombs" without her consent or knowledge, which is entirely different from the topic you are currently dwelling on.🙄

While extraction is indeed a consequence of an abortion, in the context of the advanced technology previously mentioned, the procedure no longer results in death; consequently, under existing medical guidelines, physicians are required to save the life. Link

In essence, as technology advances—which was the core of our discussion—the threshold for survival shifts. Fewer abortions end in loss, and more end in survival. If the fetus survives the procedure, doctors are ethically bound to intervene and save it, a fact clearly supported by the provided link. The link is srelevant pages. NBC.
So, there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about those censored posts.

Censorship is merely a reflection of one-dimensional narrow-mindedness.

I find myself wondering which moderator decided to censor posts that were culturally nuanced, logically argued, and backed by relevant links?

Neither this blatant censorship nor the utter inability to provide straight answers comes as any sort of shock, really.

A colleague of mine is currently putting together a piece regarding the current state of the media landscape here in America. This serves as one of his primary data points, so I sent him the link in the hopes that he might find at least some utility in it...

Admittedly, we didn't see eye to eye when we first discussed this, but as time marches on, he is increasingly forced to acknowledge that my assessment was correct. Those outlets that loudly brand themselves as "progressive" or "free" often prove to be even less liberated and far more prone to narrow-mindedness and intellectual stagnation than the very groups they condescendingly look down upon.

And this particular example illustrates that phenomenon perfectly.

(The general state of the American media is quite dismal across the board—whether you're looking at the right-wing or left-wing outlets, it's bad everywhere, that much is indisputable...)