Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

Post by hnbroseph » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #59

cybersnowflake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 murders in 42 years for something as hotbutton as abortion? Wow...given how the msm constantly carries on about this stuff you'd think prolifers were flying planes into abortion clinics every other day. Every so often I see stories of people murdered because they didn't want an abortion, why not keep a running tally of that? How does that stack up against the 60 million deaths since 73 for the other side? How many…

Unborn babies are always biologically distinguishable from babies that are already born. Unborn babies haven't yet taken a breath, have not been exposed to light, and still gather nutrients from the placenta. Inflation of the lungs happens immediately after birth, among a cascade of other events that happen quickly following birth, clearly distinguishing an unborn baby from a born baby.

Post by tathougies » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #85

tathougies wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that is terrible, but abortion clinics commit millions of murders each year according to pro-lifers, so your comment falls on deaf ears.

And fertility clinics commit even more. Yet no one talks about them.

Post by jjulius » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

rand4321 wrote: post #102

jjulius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? The fact check has nothing to do with being a morality arbiter. They simply provided the facts as they pertain to the claims. It's up to the viewer to take that information and process how they feel about it from there.

How many videos from the other side do they 'FACT CHECK' in big bold letters? Its not the factchecking in and of itself thats the issue.

Post by dvt » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

prolepunk wrote: post #61

dvt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your inflammatory pseudo-counter-argument doesn't change the fact that abortion in cases of non-life-threatening births remains morally problematic. The personhood debate is nontrivial and unless, like e.g., Peter Singer, you're willing to (excuse the pun) throw the baby out with the bathwater, justification for mid-to-late-term abortions is quite difficult and rife with edge cases.

> Your inflammatory pseudo-counter-argument doesn't change the fact that abortion in cases of non-life-threatening births remains morally problematic. Says the person who has the need to argue about what women can and can't do with their bodies while not having a uterus himself.

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #82

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #62

Part of the issue with fact checkers is how charitably they are interpreting the words. For example: Weather Reporter: The sun will rise at 6 AM Tomorrow Fact Checker: False. The language talking about sun rise is implying that the sun rotates around the earth, and that has been known to astronomers to be false for centuries. In her video, Lila Rose is saying that abortion as defined as intentionally killing the fetu…

And among "other medical conditions" would sit ectopic pregnancy, which not only you cannot deliver, you cannot even allow it to get to 12 weeks or the mother could die, so no attempt at delivery would make sense. How much medical case history would need to be in a fact-checking judgement to be accepted as fact?