Authority of the Church
Paul Yost
<35f33609...@news.inreach.com>...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:04:09 -0500, "Lisa Law" <bb...@cei.net> wrote:
> >1) If the soul emerges at birth then in partial birth abortion is
murdering
> > of a child. How, well they pull everything out but the head and put
a
> > hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull. Then
> > they pull the rest of the baby out. If the soul emerges upon
> > expulsion of child then you have by your own definition committed
> > murder.
>
> Nope. I said that the soul merges with the foetus at birth, not at
> *almost* birth.
The soul merges with the body of the baby after it is born, as it draws in
its first breath, it draws in its spiritual essence. Gabriel is correct on
this article of faith.
> > Since you say a child is not a child till they are born. So,
> > it is not murder to you till the soul is in the child.
>
> There is no child until the soul merges with a foetus at birth.
>
> >2) In reality you have no idea when the soul emerges with the body.
>
> Yes, I do. So can anyone willing to observe the process.
>
> >3) A man in Virginia went to jail for murder for getting into a car
> > accident with a pregnant women. She was 4 months pregnant...
> > and she took him to court. He is serving 5 years in jail for
murdering
> > a fetus. Where is your logic? Where is your reasoning with this?
>
> I deal with reality, not with the vagaries of the legal system.
Again Gabriel is correct. A woman in Texas(?) spilled hot coffee on
herself, and it was decided in a US court of law that McDonalds Inc. was
responsible to the tune of several million dollars. Sometimes, "ignorance
is no excuse for the law."
Dunce
abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason for
this procedure to be done.
I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is simply a
legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
Responses to that?
By the way, I also have no room for discussion where the life of the mother
is at stake. You protect the mother first.
Dunce
Paul Yost <SPA...@iea.com> wrote in article
<01bdd12f$61e35b40$7f009696@paul>...
: Gabriel <ang...@inreach.com> wrote in article
:
:
SWhippman
In article <01bdd204$1db5d580$15849bd0@default>, "Dunce"
<tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>
>I find all this very interesting. Personally I think that partial birth
>abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason for
>this procedure to be done.
So, how _do_ you think that late-term abortions should be done?
>I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is simply a
>legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
Then you haven't looked into the issues very much. In fact, it's done that way
because the method used to dilate the cervix can't dilate it too far without
damaging it (which would cause a high risk of miscarriage in future
pregnancies) and the fetal head can't exit the minimally dilated cervix without
first being collapsed. Although it would be possible to make the cervix dilate
completely by inducing labour, this makes for a much harder, long-drawn-out
procedure for the woman, and makes no difference either way to the fetus.
>Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
>umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
>entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
Why would they need to slit its throat? Practically all of these abortions are
on fetuses who aren't viable anyway. In England, abortions at that stage of
gestation are performed by inducing labour so that the fetus is indeed expelled
in its entirety (though `popped out' is definitely the wrong term. As I said,
inducing labour is a long-drawn-out process and highly unpleasant for the
woman.) It then dies immediately, or is stillborn in the first place, due to
its immaturity.
Regards,
Sarah
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it
on you, you'll be taller than everybody else.'
Rudyard Kipling as adapted by `I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue'
Dunce
Association take a stance exactly opposite what you just said? When our
wonderful president vetoed a ban on Partial Birth Abortions, the AMA was
very quick to come out and say that the procedure was not in any way
medically necessary. You do seem very well read on the subject, or at
least as well read as the sources you use allow you to be. Are you a
doctor? I don't mean that to be a wisecrack. I just wanted to know.
Nothing personal. I just think that the many many doctors who make up the
AMA must have some reason to believe that all of the reasons you cited for
using partial birth abortions are just, well, crap. I have read all the
reasons you gave, and I didn't find them very convincing. If there's one
thing we don't want, it's a mother, who has decided to terminate her
pregnancy, to be uncomfortable. That's pretty much a given, no? I imagine
it's a most uncomfortable experience in every sense of the word.
I respect your opinion, however, and I always try to be open to what people
have to say. A friend of mine once told me, "You're entitled to your damn
fool opinion." : )
Dunce
SWhippman <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808272334...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
: Please send any follow-ups to talk.abortion. Thanks.
:
Ray Lanthier
Paul Yost wrote:
> Gabriel <ang...@inreach.com> wrote in article
> <35f33609...@news.inreach.com>...
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:04:09 -0500, "Lisa Law" <bb...@cei.net> wrote:
> > >1) If the soul emerges at birth then in partial birth abortion is
> murdering
> > > of a child. How, well they pull everything out but the head and put
> a
> > > hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull. Then
> > > they pull the rest of the baby out. If the soul emerges upon
> > > expulsion of child then you have by your own definition committed
> > > murder.
> >
> > Nope. I said that the soul merges with the foetus at birth, not at
> > *almost* birth.
>
> The soul merges with the body of the baby after it is born, as it draws in
> its first breath, it draws in its spiritual essence. Gabriel is correct on
> this article of faith.
An article of whose faith? Certainly not Christian, Jewish or Hindu faith. Faith in one's own
illusions?Since birth is a process, continuous with and proceeding from the development and pushing
forward of the fetus, where is that "instant" that is "after" birth?Alfred North Whitehead
identifies the "fallacy of pure location" as well as this view of the"instant". It presents what
is known in traditional philosophy as a 'categorical error'. There is no 'jump' point for a human
being's spiritual essence to draw from, especially at such a late stage of development. One expects
to shoe in a whole person, also subject to the same kind of development as the body, after several
months of development?
It makes more sense for the soul process to being at the moment of life, not the moment of birth.
The creation of a unique organism at the moment of conception, is the beginning of a unique creative
process, and experiencing. This is the appropriate event for ensoulment. Quantum leaps are really
tiny.
Ray Lanthier
Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
Dunce wrote:
> I find all this very interesting. Personally I think that partial birth
> abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason for
> this procedure to be done.
>
> I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is simply a
> legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
> Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
> umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
> entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
>
> Responses to that?
>
> By the way, I also have no room for discussion where the life of the mother
> is at stake. You protect the mother first.
>
> Dunce
>
> Paul Yost <SPA...@iea.com> wrote in article
> <01bdd12f$61e35b40$7f009696@paul>...
> : Gabriel <ang...@inreach.com> wrote in article
> : <35f33609...@news.inreach.com>...
> : > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:04:09 -0500, "Lisa Law" <bb...@cei.net> wrote:
> : > >1) If the soul emerges at birth then in partial birth abortion is
> : murdering
> : > > of a child. How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> put
> : a
> : > > hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> Then
> : > > they pull the rest of the baby out. If the soul emerges upon
> : > > expulsion of child then you have by your own definition committed
> : > > murder.
> : >
> : > Nope. I said that the soul merges with the foetus at birth, not at
> : > *almost* birth.
> :
> : The soul merges with the body of the baby after it is born, as it draws
> in
> : its first breath, it draws in its spiritual essence. Gabriel is correct
> on
> : this article of faith.
> :
> : > > Since you say a child is not a child till they are born. So,
> :
> :
Pat Winstanley
uky.campus.mci.net> writes
>I find all this very interesting. Personally I think that partial birth
>abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason for
>this procedure to be done.
>
>I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is simply a
>legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
>Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
>umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
>entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
>
>Responses to that?
>
I think you should find out a little more about the ID&E procedure, the
D&E procedure, the reasons why either are performed and the reasons why
the former is preferred over the latter before you make such daft
pronouncements! ;-))
--
Pat Winstanley
Statellite
for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little sympathy
from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice. The
American Medical Association denounced partial birth abortions, saying that
there was no medical reason for this procedure. Maybe that "daft" bunch
should do their homework more, too, eh?
Tim
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<dyMpgDAX...@pierless.demon.co.uk>...
: In article <01bdd204$1db5d580$15849bd0@default>, Dunce <tpdurbin@hop-
:
Statellite
Tim
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<35E636C5...@earthlink.net>...
: If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
: Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system
to justify it, the
: "medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it
is murder.
:
: Dunce wrote:
:
: > I find all this very interesting. Personally I think that partial
birth
: > abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason
for
: > this procedure to be done.
: >
: > I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is
simply a
: > legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
: > Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
: > umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
: > entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
: >
: > Responses to that?
: >
: > By the way, I also have no room for discussion where the life of the
: > :
:
:
:
:
SWhippman
In article <01bdd297$8ee4dce0$35829bd0@default>, "Statellite"
<tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL reasons
>for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little sympathy
>from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice.
The real reasons it's done as it is are that it's easier on the woman than
either induced labour or D&E, which are the alternatives at this stage of
gestation. Why do you feel that people won't have any sympathy with the aim of
wanting to make things easier on the woman?
SWhippman
In article <35E6348D...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Since birth is a process, continuous with and proceeding from the development
>and pushing
>forward of the fetus, where is that "instant" that is "after" birth?
Since conception is a process, continuous with and proceeding from the
development and journey of the sperm, where is that `instant' that is `after'
conception?
See how those kinds of arguments can cut both ways?
(snip)
>It makes more sense for the soul process to being at the moment of life, not
>the moment of birth.
What `moment of life'? Life during reproduction is a continuum, not a
stop-start process.
>The creation of a unique organism at the moment of conception, is the
>beginning of a unique creative
>process,
It's hard to see how the zygote created at the `moment' of conception can be a
unique organism, given that it's quite capable of splitting into a number of
identical organisms.
> and experiencing.
What do you mean `the beginning of experiencing'? What _are_ you talking about
here?
> This is the appropriate event for ensoulment.
>Quantum leaps are really
>tiny.
Yes - including those that happen in conception.
TPDurbin
before that point. If I believed that any of the reasons abortion doctors
give for this procedure, then I would think twice. I don't believe in
making abortions "easy" for anyone. Because it is my belief that a fetus
is a human being, with rights akin to yours and mine, I am against
abortion. It is my contention that the reasons they give for the procedure
are nothing more than yet ANOTHER loophole for doctors to hide in. Let's
say that this procedure is not medically necessary. Do you think they
would tell anyone? Well, no, of course not. If you believe their reasons,
then I can see why you would see my views as insensitive. Bear in mind
that the American Medical Association spoke out AGAINST partial birth
abortion. If the medical reasons for using this procedure are so
compelling, why did they fail to convince American doctors, who would stand
to make money by performing the procedure?
Tim
SWhippman <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808281849...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
: Please send any follow-ups to talk.abortion. Thanks.
:
: In article <01bdd297$8ee4dce0$35829bd0@default>, "Statellite"
: <tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
:
: >Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL
reasons
: >for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little
sympathy
: >from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice.
:
: The real reasons it's done as it is are that it's easier on the woman
than
: either induced labour or D&E, which are the alternatives at this stage of
: gestation. Why do you feel that people won't have any sympathy with the
aim of
: wanting to make things easier on the woman?
:
: Regards,
:
Pat Winstanley
<tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes
>Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL reasons
>for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little sympathy
>from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice. The
>there was no medical reason for this procedure. Maybe that "daft" bunch
>should do their homework more, too, eh?
And what exactly do YOU think the real reasons are for any abortion
being performed after about halfway through term by *any* method?
--
Pat Winstanley
SWhippman
download this group!
>>Dunce wrote:
>SWhippman wrote:
>: >I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is
>simply a
>: >legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
>:
>: Then you haven't looked into the issues very much. In fact, it's done
>that way
>: because the method used to dilate the cervix can't dilate it too far
>without
>: damaging it (which would cause a high risk of miscarriage in future
>: pregnancies) and the fetal head can't exit the minimally dilated cervix
>without
>: first being collapsed. Although it would be possible to make the cervix
>dilate
>: completely by inducing labour, this makes for a much harder,
>long-drawn-out
>: procedure for the woman, and makes no difference either way to the fetus.
>:
(snip)
>That was quite informative, Sarah.
Thank you!
> Why does the American Medical
>Association take a stance exactly opposite what you just >said?
`Exactly opposite' in what way? While they have expressed their disapproval of
the procedure, I'm not aware of them having disagreed with any of the medical
points I made about the details of the procedure or why it's done that way.
When our
>wonderful president vetoed a ban on Partial Birth Abortions, the AMA was
>very quick to come out and say that the procedure was not in any way
>medically necessary.
Depends what you mean by `medically necessary'. Sure, there are alternatives
which can be used. They're just harder on the woman and make no difference to
the fetus - so why use them?
> You do seem very well read on the subject, or at
>least as well read as the sources you use allow you to >be. Are you a
>doctor?
Yes.
> I don't mean that to be a wisecrack. I just wanted to know.
>Nothing personal. I just think that the many many doctors who make up the
>AMA must have some reason to believe that all of the reasons you cited for
>using partial birth abortions are just, well, crap.
And what about the many doctors who make up the ACOG (which is, after all, the
specialist organisation of doctors who actually _work_ in the field of
obstetrics and gynaecology)? They've come out in support of keeping the
procedure legal, you know.
> I have read all the
>reasons you gave, and I didn't find them very convincing.
Like to specify why not?
> If there's one
>thing we don't want, it's a mother, who has decided to terminate her
>pregnancy, to be uncomfortable. That's pretty much a given, no?
Agreed. Why, then, should she have to go through a more difficult procedure,
like D&E or induced labour?
> I imagine
>it's a most uncomfortable experience in every sense of the word.
Especially given that women who are having abortions this late are often having
to abort an initially much-wanted pregnancy due to health problems or fetal
disability.
>I respect your opinion, however, and I always try to be open to what people
>have to say.
Thanks!
> A friend of mine once told me, "You're >entitled to your damn
>fool opinion." : )
<grin>
SWhippman
<tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>SWhippman <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199808281849...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>: Please send any follow-ups to talk.abortion. Thanks.
>:
>: In article <01bdd297$8ee4dce0$35829bd0@default>, "Statellite"
>: <tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>:
>: >Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL
>reasons
>: >for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little
>sympathy
>: >from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice.
>:
>: The real reasons it's done as it is are that it's easier on the woman
>than
>: either induced labour or D&E, which are the alternatives at this stage of
>: gestation. Why do you feel that people won't have any sympathy with the
>aim of
>: wanting to make things easier on the woman?
>:
>I'm not against making things easier on women. My objection comes long
>before that point. If I believed that any of the reasons abortion doctors
>give for this procedure, then I would think twice.
Why do you not believe them?
> I don't believe in
>making abortions "easy" for anyone. Because it is my belief that a fetus
>is a human being, with rights akin to yours and mine, I am against
>abortion.
Excuse me if I've misunderstood, but you seemed to be registering some
particular objection to IDE. If it's the whole idea of abortion you object to,
why object to one particular procedure? What difference does it make how it's
done?
> It is my contention that the reasons they give for the procedure
>are nothing more than yet ANOTHER loophole for doctors to hide in.
And on what grounds do you contend this?
> Let's
>say that this procedure is not medically necessary.
Depends what you mean by `medically necessary'. Alternative methods of late
abortion exist. They're just harder on the woman.
Suppose a woman finds out that her fetus is so severely disabled it has no
chance of surviving birth. Heartbroken, she feels that she just can't face
going through with the remainder of her pregnancy and the pain of childbirth,
knowing the inevitable end. She wants an abortion. What would you suggest
that woman should do?
> Do you think they
>would tell anyone? Well, no, of course not.
I'm confused here. Do I think _who_ would tell anyone? The AMA seem to have
told the general public precisely that.
> If you believe their reasons,
>then I can see why you would see my views as insensitive. Bear in mind
>that the American Medical Association spoke out AGAINST partial birth
>abortion.
Bear in mind that the American College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists spoke
out in favour of it remaining legal - and they're the experts in the field.
> If the medical reasons for using this procedure are so
>compelling, why did they fail to convince American doctors,
Looks like they convinced the group of doctors who could reasonably be expected
to know the most about it, didn't they?
> who would stand
>to make money by performing the procedure?
Just for information, how does the cost of IDE compare to the cost of
childbirth? Bear in mind that the latter cost should include several further
visits to the ante-natal clinic as well, all of which can be charged for (at
quite exorbitant rates, judging from what I've been reading about American
medical practices).
Ray Fischer
>Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL reasons
>for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little sympathy
>from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice.
The REAL reason for doing the procedure is that it's often the safest
available for the woman.
> The
>American Medical Association denounced partial birth abortions, saying that
>there was no medical reason for this procedure. Maybe that "daft" bunch
>should do their homework more, too, eh?
Maybe they should. Notice that they only agreed to the ban after
congress added protections for doctors. Notice also that the college
of obstetritians and gynecologists (the speciaties that are actually
concerned with women's healtgh) remains firmly opposed to the bill.
Notice also that the AMA did NOT "denounce" the procedure.
And finally, notice yet another clueless putz repeating pro-lie
disinformation, thinking that the lies he's been fed have some
semblance to the truth.
--
Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
Ray Fischer
>I'm not against making things easier on women.
But you object to procedures which make things easier for women.
You need to get your story straight.
> My objection comes long
>before that point. If I believed that any of the reasons abortion doctors
>give for this procedure, then I would think twice.
It appears that you have yet to think once.
> I don't believe in
>making abortions "easy" for anyone.
Thus contradicting your first statement.
> Because it is my belief that a fetus
>is a human being, with rights akin to yours and mine, I am against
>abortion.
What rights would those be? Are you aware of a right that allows one
to demand the use of another person's body? Allows one to cause
another pain and injury and expense? Allows one to threaten another
person's life?
Why do you think you have any rights over a woman's body?
> It is my contention that the reasons they give for the procedure
>are nothing more than yet ANOTHER loophole for doctors to hide in.
It's my contention that you're just another pro-lie propagandist
> Let's
>say that this procedure is not medically necessary. Do you think they
>would tell anyone? Well, no, of course not.
Well you're wrong. Again. It is not medically necessary. There are
alternatives. But those alternatives happen to be more dangerous for
the woman.
Ray Fischer
>If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
Your complaint about a medical procedure you know nothing about?
Indeed.
>Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
>"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
And you're an idiot.
Jesse Spurgeon
not all, the baby is already dead. Partial birth abortion allows removal of the dead baby with
little trama to the mother. In the remaining cases the baby is badly deformed with little
chance of a reasonable life.
Do you idiots hate women? We must keep are laws free of religious hatred and bias. Are you
aware of all the sick things that your church has done over the past 2000 years. I recomend
that you read "HOLY HORRORS" by James A.Haught, New York, 1990 Pub by Prometheus. " HOLY
HATRED" by the same author is another good book for you people-of-faith to read. Christians
are not very nice.
Ray Lanthier wrote:
> If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
> Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
> "medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
>
> Dunce wrote:
>
> > I find all this very interesting. Personally I think that partial birth
> > abortion is barbaric, and even the AMA said there is NO medical reason for
> > this procedure to be done.
> >
> > I think that leaving the cranium of the fetus inside the mother is simply a
> > legal (and moral?) loophole for the doctors performing this procedure.
> > Next excuse will be that the soul doesn't merge with the body until the
> > umbilical cord is cut, so that they can just pop the child out in its
> > entirety and slit its throat right there in front of the mother.
> >
> > Responses to that?
> >
> > By the way, I also have no room for discussion where the life of the mother
Ray Lanthier
put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
Then they pull the rest of the baby"
unnecessary if the child is dead. Neither is it necessary to keep the cranium inside the mother.
The AMA must have a C average if they call it partial "birth" .
Ray Fischer
>" How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> Then they pull the rest of the baby"
>One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that sucking the brain out is
>unnecessary if the child is dead.
But in your case that does seem to be the case.
If the head is too big to fit past the cervix then the head needs to
be made smaller.
SWhippman
In article <35E96F58...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes, on the subject of IDE (also known, though not
very appropriately, as PBA):
>One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that
>sucking the brain out is
>unnecessary if the child is dead.
Yes, it is. How else would they remove the head from the minimally dilated
cervix? (Of course, they could dilate it further, but the only way to do that
without damaging it would be to make the woman go through labour. Why would
you want her to have to do that for a fetus that's dead, dying, or set to be a
vegetable?
> Neither is it necessary to keep the cranium
>inside the mother.
How else do you propose removing it, without subjecting a woman to labour to
dilate the cervix sufficiently?
>The AMA must have a C average if they call it partial "birth" .
I don't think they actually invented the name. Not sure where it originally
came from, but it certainly seems to be pro-life factions who try hardest to
propagate it. After all, it allows them to mislead people into thinking that
this is the bogeyman they've been warning us about all these years - abortion
on a fetus that's the oft-quoted `five minutes before birth'.
Regards,
Sarah
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it
c...@iea.com
Jesse Spurgeon <spur...@3-cities.com> wrote:
> The AMA does not say there is no good reason for partial bitrth abortion. In many cases, but
> not all, the baby is already dead. Partial birth abortion allows removal of the dead baby with
> little trama to the mother. In the remaining cases the baby is badly deformed with little
> chance of a reasonable life.
This isn't quite right. The so-called "PBA" is used primarily for dead and
deformed babies, but also occasionally when the life and/or health of the
mother is threatened. I know of no documented cases of elective "PBA"
abortions performed on viable fetuses in this country. I dare say you would
be extremely hard pressed to find ANY doctor willing to perform one, despite
the fact they are still safer than birth.
I have heard testimony from obstetric officers of national health care
organizations that they were unaware of any such cases. I've also read
statements from the pro-birth crowd made by people who claimed to be doctors
who have routinely performed such operations. I have never met anyone who
has received such an operation, or has even sought one, or has admitted
performing one.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
c...@iea.com
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> " How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> Then they pull the rest of the baby"
> The AMA must have a C average if they call it partial "birth" .
The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out. The reason the brains
are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
This brings me to another question. We can now perform surgery to correct
life threatening congenital birth defects in vivo (in the womb). Suppose we
develop a method for stimulating neural development in fetuses without
brains. Suppose further the procedure has an 80% success rate and costs a
mere $250,000. Should we require women to undergo treatment if tests reveal
such abnormalities, even if there is no way in hell they could ever repay
even a fraction of the cost? Remember, a human life is at stake.
What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
potential birth defects. If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent. Since most insurance
companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills? Or should the
government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine? Or is
it only the babies of wealthy couples that should be ensured full rights to
live, and the poverty stricken must just make do?
c...@iea.com
Jesse Spurgeon <spur...@3-cities.com> wrote:
> The AMA does not say there is no good reason for partial bitrth abortion. In many cases, but
> not all, the baby is already dead. Partial birth abortion allows removal of the dead baby with
> little trama to the mother. In the remaining cases the baby is badly deformed with little
> chance of a reasonable life.
Actually, it turns out the AMA came out against the late term abortion
procedure called "PBA" by the pro-birth crowd. I do not know whether this
means they oppose the procedure itself or the misnomer. I am aware, however,
and Papa Jack can back me up on this, that an article published last year in
the Wall Street Journal said the AMA caved on the issue in a back room deal
with senate republicans in exchange for support on medicare reimbursements.
I know there must be a few doctors who would just as soon watch a woman die
as to save her life with a "PBA". There are quite a few more who would just
as soon she deliver a dead or doomed fetus as to abort it. However, very few
doctors support the PBA bill before congress. The reason is that lawmakers
don't know more about medicine than doctors. If you were sick, who would you
seek treatment from, your doctor or your senator? Get the God-Damned
politicians out of medicine! The should start practicing law, like we
elected them, or fine themselves for practicing medicine without a license!
Bob & Martha Vera
> The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out.
After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!
> The reason the brains
> are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>
No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
> This brings me to another question. We can now perform surgery to correct
> life threatening congenital birth defects in vivo (in the womb). Suppose we
> develop a method for stimulating neural development in fetuses without
> brains.
So we just magically grow brains in the baby - I'll leave the fantasy to those who live in their own on
this issue.
> Suppose further the procedure has an 80% success rate and costs a
> mere $250,000. Should we require women to undergo treatment if tests reveal
> such abnormalities, even if there is no way in hell they could ever repay
> even a fraction of the cost? Remember, a human life is at stake.
BAIT. BAIT. Ok everyone who has to have some medical procedure performed on them that is out of their
financial scope - PLEASE LAY DOWN AND DIE.
> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> potential birth defects.
Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
> If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
> could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
> free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
> KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent.
Obviously, you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about women who give birth to premies only to have those premies
die. You are an arrogant human being.
> Since most insurance
> companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
> garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills?
Once again, People. All those without money, please just die and make life easier for cda.
> Or should the
> government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine?
Or, how about MEDICARE being built to take this one, or local communities handling the bill, GEE! What
if everybody really cared about everybody else.
> Or is
> it only the babies of wealthy couples that should be ensured full rights to
> live, and the poverty stricken must just make do?
>
You have just made the case, buck. Are you proud of yourself.
Bob
Ray Lanthier
more effective types of surgery. It would make more sense, ( and be less painful) to anesthetize and
perform a Cesarian to remove the corpus. How a dead baby makes it was that far down the birth canal is
a mystery to me.
c...@iea.com wrote:
> In article <35E96F58...@earthlink.net>,
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > " How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> > put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> > Then they pull the rest of the baby"
> > One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that sucking the brain out is
> > unnecessary if the child is dead. Neither is it necessary to keep the cranium inside the mother.
> > The AMA must have a C average if they call it partial "birth" .
>
> The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out. The reason the brains
> are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>
No kidding.
> This brings me to another question. We can now perform surgery to correct
> life threatening congenital birth defects in vivo (in the womb). Suppose we
> develop a method for stimulating neural development in fetuses without
> brains. Suppose further the procedure has an 80% success rate and costs a
> mere $250,000. Should we require women to undergo treatment if tests reveal
> such abnormalities, even if there is no way in hell they could ever repay
> even a fraction of the cost? Remember, a human life is at stake.
>
You are balancing life against dollars. I am sure with all the fund-rasing ministries around some good
folk might have made that possible.
> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> potential birth defects. If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
> could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
> free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
> KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent. Since most insurance
> companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
> garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills? Or should the
> government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine? Or is
> it only the babies of wealthy couples that should be ensured full rights to
> live, and the poverty stricken must just make do?
>
No I believe no unborn child's health should be endangered because of lack of funds. America is almost
unique in not having a National health care plan.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
c...@iea.com wrote:
> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> potential birth defects. If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
> could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
> free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
> KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent.
Well, these women probably don't have any access to medical care.
But how about women who live in abject poverty?
We know this causes a high rate of mortality.
So should we ban all childbearing by poor women, to save babies?
> Since most insurance
> companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
> garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills? Or should the
> government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine? Or is
> it only the babies of wealthy couples that should be ensured full rights to
> live, and the poverty stricken must just make do?
Well, that is the way it is now . ...
did you see the CDC stats on maternal and infant mortality,
whcih compared the rates for whites and balcks?
Yeek.
I'd say you hit the nail on the head with that last sentence.
Seems like the rtloonies only care about fetuses the woman
doesn't want to carry, and have no problems with dead poor babies.
Or they'd be yammering for universal access to health care.
But no.
Those crocidile tears they shed are more to convince themselves
of their delusions of moral superiority than anything else.
Heretic
Ray Fischer
>c...@iea.com wrote:
>> The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out.
>
>After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!
It is incorrect.
>> The reason the brains
>> are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
>> the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>>
>
>No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
"THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!"
The head is too large to fit past the cervix. It needs to be made
smaller.
[...]
>> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
>> potential birth defects.
>
>Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
Sounds like a good argument for allowing abortion.
Deal with it.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
rv...@olg.com wrote:
> After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A
COMPLETE LIE!
And her name is?
And she worked where?
> > The reason the brains
> > are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> > the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
> No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
Wow.
If your nurse pal said so, I'll bet she lost her license . ..
fact is, in order to maintain cervical competency,
the cervix can be dilated only a small war. SWhippman et al posted
the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus. Lot of
complications in that one. ask your "nurse" friend.
> BAIT. BAIT. Ok everyone who has to have some medical procedure performed on
them that is out of their
> financial scope - PLEASE LAY DOWN AND DIE.
Well, honey, that is exactly what is happening right now in the USA.
Poor women have a very high maternal and infant mortality rate.
As JAMA recently wrote, poverty means a WAY shortened life span.
GEt out of your SUV and leave the 'burbs and see how the poor die.
> > What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> > potential birth defects.
> Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
Hmm.
So you say that the poor SHOULD just lay down and die, then?
Hope you choke to death on your Starbuck's nonfat decaf frappicino.
Damned yuppie parasite!
> > If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
> > could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
> > free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
> > KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent.
> Obviously, you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about women who give birth to premies
only to have those premies
> die. You are an arrogant human being.
Arrogant?
Compared to what you said above?
And if YOU yuppie SUV wielding scum would back universal health care,
perhpas we could reduce the occurence of premies who die because the owmen
had no access to health care.
> > Since most insurance
> > companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
> > garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills?
> Once again, People. All those without money, please just die and make life
easier for cda.
"life is tough and serious decsions have to be made. deal with it."
> > Or should the
> > government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine?
> Or, how about MEDICARE being built to take this one, or local communities
handling the bill, GEE! What
> if everybody really cared about everybody else.
So are you willing to pay your fair share of the taxes?
Oh no.
Got to get the kids to soccer in your SUV, eh?
And Blair's ballet lessons!
and Cuthbert's private school!
and you DESERVE your perks, after all, the poor could have
done like you, and chosen wealthy, healthy parents who gave YOU
all the breaks . . ..
Boob, learn a bit about sarcasm.
Bob & Martha Vera
> In article <35EB2577...@olg.com>,
> rv...@olg.com wrote:
>
> > After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A
> COMPLETE LIE!
>
> And her name is?
> And she worked where?
>
Does the name Brenda Pratt Shaffer (sp?), Brenda Pratt Shafer, is a registered nurse
with 15 years experience. In September, 1993, the nursing agency she worked for
assigned her to work at a clinic operated by abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell. On her
third day on the job, she was a close-up witness to three partial-birth abortions.
Before that experience, Nurse Shafer considered herself to be "pro-choice." Since
then, she has testified before congressional Committees, explaining what she
experienced at the abortion clinic. She is featured in the ad "What the Nurse Saw".
> > > The reason the brains
> > > are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> > > the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>
> > No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
>
> Wow.
> If your nurse pal said so, I'll bet she lost her license . ..
No, DORK! That is the whole problem with the procedure.
> fact is, in order to maintain cervical competency,
> the cervix can be dilated only a small war.
Actually, the doctor gives the woman a treatment to enlarge the cervix. Brenda
explanined this to me once, but I have forgotten them.
> SWhippman et al posted
> the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
> so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
> Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
> replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus.
I would prefer that abortions be made illegal. How YOU kill the child is not
siginificant to me.
> Lot of
> complications in that one. ask your "nurse" friend.
>
Not really. Murder is murder.
> > BAIT. BAIT. Ok everyone who has to have some medical procedure performed on
> them that is out of their
> > financial scope - PLEASE LAY DOWN AND DIE.
>
> Well, honey, that is exactly what is happening right now in the USA.
> Poor women have a very high maternal and infant mortality rate.
> As JAMA recently wrote, poverty means a WAY shortened life span.
> GEt out of your SUV and leave the 'burbs and see how the poor die.
>
Don't have an SUV. Can not afford it.
> > > What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> > > potential birth defects.
>
> > Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
>
> Hmm.
> So you say that the poor SHOULD just lay down and die, then?
> Hope you choke to death on your Starbuck's nonfat decaf frappicino.
> Damned yuppie parasite!
>
No YOU do, by your inane arguments. Sorry do not drink coffee. Think yuppies are the
BIGGEST reason abortion is so "ACCEPTABLE" today.
> > > If the woman were to receive no prenatal care, she
> > > could give birth to a nonviable baby in complete ignorance, and therefore
> > > free from the guilt and sin that would accompany giving birth to a baby she
> > > KNEW could not survive but did nothing to prevent.
>
> > Obviously, you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about women who give birth to premies
> only to have those premies
> > die. You are an arrogant human being.
>
> Arrogant?
> Compared to what you said above?
Yes!
> And if YOU yuppie SUV wielding scum would back universal health care,
Actually, I am not totally opposed to universal health care.
> perhpas we could reduce the occurence of premies who die because the owmen
> had no access to health care.
>
Actuall we could. Still, premies would be a fact of life. I know.
> > > Since most insurance
> > > companies don't cover fetal operations, should the hospital be allowed to
> > > garnish a woman's wages to offset her medical bills?
>
> > Once again, People. All those without money, please just die and make life
> easier for cda.
>
> "life is tough and serious decsions have to be made. deal with it."
>
I agree, but do not deal with it by killing babies to escape your problems.
> > > Or should the
> > > government pay via increased taxes, or perhaps nationalized medicine?
>
> > Or, how about MEDICARE being built to take this one, or local communities
> handling the bill, GEE! What
> > if everybody really cared about everybody else.
>
> So are you willing to pay your fair share of the taxes?
I already do. If one single politician could guarantee that my additional $20-$50 a
month would be directly used for medical services to the poor (with the exception of
abortion, euthanasia, etc ...) I would pay it in a heartbeat.
> Oh no.
> Got to get the kids to soccer in your SUV, eh?
Sorry, no SUV, no soccer. My how you have such preconceived notions.
> And Blair's ballet lessons!
Blair?
> and Cuthbert's private school!
Cuthbert>
> and you DESERVE your perks, after all, the poor could have
> done like you, and chosen wealthy, healthy parents who gave YOU
> all the breaks . . ..
>
Parents were not wealthy. Just a lot smarter than yours.
> Boob, learn a bit about sarcasm.
>
Will you?
> Heretic
>
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Bob
Bob & Martha Vera
When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure of PBA is to
gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result perfectly.
I realize that it is hard for you to understand. This is a method that is not in any way
required. The procedure is stated as being such by Dr. Haskell himself.
Bob
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com> wrote:
> >c...@iea.com wrote:
>
> >> The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out.
> >
> >After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!
>
> It is incorrect.
>
> >> The reason the brains
> >> are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> >> the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
> >>
> >
> >No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
>
> "THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!"
>
> The head is too large to fit past the cervix. It needs to be made
> smaller.
>
> [...]
> >> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> >> potential birth defects.
> >
> >Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
>
Pat Winstanley
<rv...@olg.com> writes
>Hey Ray,
>
>When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure of PBA
>is to
>gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result perfectly.
>
No babies involved. Try again.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<rv...@olg.com> writes
>> SWhippman et al posted
>> the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
>> so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
>> Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
>> replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus.
>
>I would prefer that abortions be made illegal. How YOU kill the child is not
>siginificant to me.
If yoy don't care how the *foetus* is removed from the woman, why does
the idea of ID&E (rather than any other technique) bother you?
--
Pat Winstanley
Ray Fischer
>When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it.
I've already read the objective medical description of IDE abortions.
I've even bothered to find out the reasons for doing it.
Have you?
> The whole procedure of PBA is to
>gurantee a dead baby.
Which proves that you are either lying or stupid.
Possibly both.
> The method fits the desired result perfectly.
Oh? Why? Do you know how easy it is to kill a fetus before an
abortion? Just insert a needle through the wall of the uterus and
inject a toxin. Quick and simple. But you'd _still_ need to make
the head of the fetus smaller in order to get it out.
>I realize that it is hard for you to understand. This is a method that is not in any way
>required. The procedure is stated as being such by Dr. Haskell himself.
Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more, but
then that's part of your objective anyway, isn't it?
Read this. You'll be less of an idiot.
========================================================================
Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion
Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar,
September 13, 1992
(BY MARTIN HASKELL, M.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in
that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are
inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.
Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an
adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and
Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's
office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients
20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of
complications.
Background D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation
methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This happened
in part because of lack of hospital facilities allowing second trimester
abortions in some geographic areas, in part because surgeons needed a
`right now' solution to complete
suction abortions inadvertently started in the second trimester and in
part to provide a means of early second trimester abortion to avoid
necessary delays for instillation methods. 1
The North Carolina Conference in 1978 established D&E as the preferred
method for early second trimester abortions in the U.S. 2 , 3 , 4
Footnotes at end of article.
Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus
with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated
cervix. 5
However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to
be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of
development.
Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an
induction method. 6 , 7 , 8
Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been described at
previous NAF meetings. The first relies on sterile urea intra-amniotic
infusion to cause fetal demise and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues
prior to surgery. 9
The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours prior to
surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and ensuing autolysis
soften the tissues. There are attendant risks of infection with this
method.
In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely upon some
means to induce early fetal demise to soften the fetal tissues making
dismemberment easier.
Patient Selection the author routinely performs this procedure on all
patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author
performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
The author refers for induction patients falling into the following
categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than
20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks;
patients 26 weeks and over.
Description of Dilation and Extraction Method
Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be
described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound
visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull
decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.
Day 1--Dilation
The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock
scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.
In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated
to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are
placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.
Day 2--Dilation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15
and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns
home or to a motel overnight.
Day 3--The Operation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin
intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a
tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's
abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan
provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and
approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then
held in position over the lower extremities.
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or
Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the
uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip
of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When
the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to
open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity.
The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a
version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the
vagina.
By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the
fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his
instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.
With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to
deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and
the upper extremities.
The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not
enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or
spine up.
At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left
had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus
with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of
the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying
traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts
and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction
to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a
pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully
advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle
finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of
his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe
elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the
base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the
skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into
this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in
place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the
patient.
The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the
uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The
procedure ends.
Recovery
Patients are observed a minimum of 2 hours following surgery. A pad
check and vital signs are performed every 30 minutes. Patients with
minimal bleeding after 30 minutes are encouraged to walk about the
building or outside between checks.
Intravenous fluids, pitocin and antibiotics are available for the
exceptional times they are needed.
Anesthesia Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine administered intra-cervically
is the standard anesthesia. Nitrous-oxide/oxygen analgesic is
administered nasally as an adjunct. For the Dilapan insert and Dilapan
change, 12cc's is used in 3 equidistant locations around the cervix. For
the surgery, 24cc's is used at 6 equidistant spots.
Carbocaine 1% is substituted for lidocaine for patients who expressed
lidocaine sensitivity.
Medications
All patients not allergic to tetracycline analogues receive doxycycline
200 mgm by mouth daily for 3 days beginning Day 1.
Patients with any history of gonorrhea, chlamydia or pelvic inflammatory
disease receive additional doxycycline, 100 mgm by mouth twice daily for
six additional days.
Patients allergic to tetracyclines are not given prophylactic
antibiotics.
Ergotrate 0.2 mgm by mouth four times daily for three days is dispensed
to each patient.
Pitocin 10 IU intramuscularly is administered upon removal of the
Dilapan on Day 3.
Rhogam intramuscularly is provided to all Rh negative patients on Day 3.
Ibuprofen orally is provided liberally at a rate of 100 mgm per hour
>from Day 1 onward.
Patients with severe cramps with Dilapan dilation are provided Phenergan
25 mgm suppositories rectally every 4 hours as needed.
Rare patients require Synalogos DC in order to sleep during Dilapan
dilation.
Patients with a hemoglobin less than 10 g/dl prior to surgery receive
packed red blood cell transfusions.
Follow Up
All patients are given a 24 hour physician's number to call in case of a
problem or concern.
At least three attempts to contact each patient by phone one week after
surgery are made by the office staff.
All patients are asked to return for check-up three weeks following
their surgery.
Third Trimester
The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a conceptually similar
technique. He adds additional changes of Dilapan and/or lamineria in the
48 hour dilation period. Coupled with other refinements and a slower
operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more. 10
Summary
In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for
achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in
the third trimester.
Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method
that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia
Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree of surgical
skill, and may not be appropriate for a few patients.
Footnotes
1 Cates, W. Jr., Schulz, K.F., Grimes D.A., et al: The Effects of Delay
and Method of Choice on the Risk of Abortion Morbidity, Family Planning
Perspectives, 9:266, 1977.
2 Borell, U., Emberey, M.P., Bygdeman, M., et al: Midtrimester Abortion
by Dilation and Evacuation (Letter), American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 131:232, 1978.
3 Centers for Disease Control: Abortion Surveillance 1978, p. 30,
November, 1980.
4 Grimes, D.A., Cates, W. Jr. (Berger, G.S., et al, ed): Dilation and
Evacuation, Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of
Experience, Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 132.
5 Ibid, p. 121-128.
6 Ibid, p. 121.
7 Kerenyi, T.D. (Bergen, G.S., et al, ed): Hypertonic Saline Instillation,
Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of Experience,
Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 79.
8 Hanson, M.S. (Zatuchni, G. I., et al, ed): Midtrimester Abortion:
Dilation and Extraction Preceded by Laminaria, Pregnancy Termination
Procedures, Safety and New Developments, Hagerstown, Harper and Row,
1979, p. 192.
9 Hern, W.M., Abortion Practice, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1990, p.
127, 144-6.
Mark Hartman
<pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35EBBD9B...@olg.com>, Bob & Martha Vera
><rv...@olg.com> writes
>>Hey Ray,
>>
>>When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure
>>of PBA is to gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result
>>perfectly.
>
>No babies involved. Try again.
No intelligence involved in your posts, Pat. Don't bother trying again;
we all know you can't do it.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman |Consultants to business, industry and education since 1977
C O M P U T E R | Database design * User interface * Troubleshooting
S O L U T I O N S| Networking * Client/server systems * Macintosh * Oracle
=== tel 714/758-0640 ===============<*>================ fax 714/999-5030 ===
Macintosh -- It just works!
Mark Hartman
>The AMA does not say there is no good reason for partial birth abortion.
>In many cases, but not all, the baby is already dead. Partial birth
>abortion allows removal of the dead baby with little trama to the mother.
>In the remaining cases the baby is badly deformed with little chance of a
>reasonable life.
In the first case, if the baby (and thank you for using that term) is
already dead, then it's not an abortion, is it? And in that case no sane
person has any qualms with the procedure.
In the second case, you're back to the old, hackneyed "quality of life"
argument, which shows your desperation to find something good in this
procedure. Not even serious "pro-choicers" expect to be taken seriously
when using such an argument nowadays; even people who voted for Clinton
twice aren't taken in by THAT argument anymore.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman |Consultants to business, industry and education since 1977
C O M P U T E R | Database design * User interface * Troubleshooting
S O L U T I O N S| Networking * Client/server systems * Macintosh * Oracle
=== tel 714/758-0640 ===============<*>================ fax 714/999-5030 ===
The decline of professional dancing: a sad fate of Astaires.
Mark Hartman
>--
>Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
>r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
> understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
I wonder if Ray realizes just how much his Brandeis quote applies to him.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman |Consultants to business, industry and education since 1977
C O M P U T E R | Database design * User interface * Troubleshooting
S O L U T I O N S| Networking * Client/server systems * Macintosh * Oracle
=== tel 714/758-0640 ===============<*>================ fax 714/999-5030 ===
Wintel is to Mac as an Iraqi T-72 tank is to an M1A1 tank. --Tom Clancy
Mark Hartman
hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <35EB2577...@olg.com>,
> rv...@olg.com wrote:
>
>> After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A
>COMPLETE LIE!
>
>And her name is?
>And she worked where?
>
>> > The reason the brains
>> > are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This
portion of
>> > the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>
>> No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
>
>Wow.
>If your nurse pal said so, I'll bet she lost her license . ..
>fact is, in order to maintain cervical competency,
>the cervix can be dilated only a small war. SWhippman et al posted
>the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
>so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
>Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
>replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus. Lot of
>complications in that one. ask your "nurse" friend.
How about you simply ask anyone who's ever taken an anatomy class?
Before birth, the plates which make up the skull have not fused; this
is why newborns have the "pointy-headed" look. Their heads DO "collapse"
to a point during the birthing process, because the skull is not a unit
at the time.
However, the brain is not the limiting factor; the size of the skull
plates are. The brain, a soft organ, can be compressed considerably
more than hard bone. Removing the brain has NO value in the procedure
except to ensure a dead fetus.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman |Consultants to business, industry and education since 1977
C O M P U T E R | Database design * User interface * Troubleshooting
S O L U T I O N S| Networking * Client/server systems * Macintosh * Oracle
=== tel 714/758-0640 ===============<*>================ fax 714/999-5030 ===
"Success flourishes only in perserverance" - Baron Manfred vonRichthofen
Bob & Martha Vera
That is all I am saying. By the way if all but the head is delivered ... ah never mind ...
blindness blindness
I also think you need to read Haskell's papers (I have) and Brenda Pratt Shaffer's story (I
have).
BTW, I'll cut the name calling out now.
Kate Michaelman, NARAL leader, admitted in a debate at Georgetown Univ. that "yes, something
is killed".
Bob
Ray Lanthier
Right. If you can believe that, don't go into real estate.
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <35EBBD9B...@olg.com>, Bob & Martha Vera
> <rv...@olg.com> writes
> >Hey Ray,
> >
> >When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure of PBA
> >is to
> >gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result perfectly.
> >
>
> No babies involved. Try again.
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
Ray Lanthier
It called an "abortion" and it is called partial "birth".
Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light of day.
What else does one need to know?
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
>
> Your complaint about a medical procedure you know nothing about?
>
> Indeed.
>
> >Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
> >"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
>
> And you're an idiot.
>
In the absence of rational justification, not even capable of 'ad hominem' one resorts to 'ad
abusam'.
Ray Lanthier
Yah all the time. A Cesarian would make more sense to remove the , one would assume -, immobile
,corpus.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >" How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> > put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> > Then they pull the rest of the baby"
> >One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that sucking the brain out is
> >unnecessary if the child is dead.
>
> But in your case that does seem to be the case.
>
> If the head is too big to fit past the cervix then the head needs to
> be made smaller.
>
Ray Lanthier
"In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin Haskell, the Ohio doctor widely
credited with perfecting the
practice of partial-birth abortion, was asked if the fetus was dead before the procedure is begun.
"No it's not." Haskell said.
"No it's really not." In a 1989 interview with the Dayton (Ohio) News, Haskell said it is the sharp
thrust into the skull with
scissors that usually kills the fetus. "When I do the instrumentation on the skull...it destroys the
brain tissue sufficiently so that
even if it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not alive, Haskell said." "
I am sure you will persist in arguing the facts on the basis that people don't know what they are
talking about.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
>
> Your complaint about a medical procedure you know nothing about?
>
> Indeed.
>
> >Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
> >"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
>
> And you're an idiot.
>
Ray Lanthier
canal to the cervix? If this is what happens, I thought it was known as still birth, and did not
require drilling the skull.
Bob & Martha Vera wrote:
> Hey Ray,
>
> When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure of PBA is to
> gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result perfectly.
>
> I realize that it is hard for you to understand. This is a method that is not in any way
> required. The procedure is stated as being such by Dr. Haskell himself.
>
> Bob
>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com> wrote:
> > >c...@iea.com wrote:
> >
> > >> The fetus is dead before its brains are sucked out.
> > >
> > >After conversations with a nurse who formerly assisted in PBAs, THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!
> >
> > It is incorrect.
> >
> > >> The reason the brains
> > >> are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This portion of
> > >> the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
> > >>
> > >
> > >No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
> >
> > "THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!"
> >
> > The head is too large to fit past the cervix. It needs to be made
> > smaller.
> >
> > [...]
> > >> What about women who receive prenatal care? Such care might uncover
> > >> potential birth defects.
> > >
> > >Life is tough and serious decisions have to be made. Deal with it.
> >
> > Sounds like a good argument for allowing abortion.
> >
> > Deal with it.
> >
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com> wrote:
>
> >When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it.
>
> I've already read the objective medical description of IDE abortions.
> I've even bothered to find out the reasons for doing it.
> Have you?
>
> > The whole procedure of PBA is to
> >gurantee a dead baby.
>
> Which proves that you are either lying or stupid.
>
> Possibly both.
>
> > The method fits the desired result perfectly.
>
> Oh? Why? Do you know how easy it is to kill a fetus before an
> abortion? Just insert a needle through the wall of the uterus and
> inject a toxin. Quick and simple. But you'd _still_ need to make
> the head of the fetus smaller in order to get it out.
>
> >I realize that it is hard for you to understand. This is a method that is not in any way
> >required. The procedure is stated as being such by Dr. Haskell himself.
>
> Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
> her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more,
Cesarians are not uncommon in live births. Why the squeamishness with dead fetuses?At least the
anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
TPDurbin
I listen to what other people have to say. Without insulting them. I
would have respected your opinion more if you had not reverted to a five
year old mentality at the end of your post. Name calling is something that
kids do, not adults.
Tim
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in article <rayEyG...@netcom.com>...
: Statellite <tpdu...@hop-uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
: >Well if the prochoice movement were to come out and admit the REAL
reasons
: >for the procedure being done as it is, then they would have little
sympathy
: >from anyone, including people who now call themselves prochoice.
:
: The REAL reason for doing the procedure is that it's often the safest
: available for the woman.
:
: > The
: >American Medical Association denounced partial birth abortions, saying
that
: >there was no medical reason for this procedure. Maybe that "daft" bunch
: >should do their homework more, too, eh?
:
: Maybe they should. Notice that they only agreed to the ban after
: congress added protections for doctors. Notice also that the college
: of obstetritians and gynecologists (the speciaties that are actually
: concerned with women's healtgh) remains firmly opposed to the bill.
: Notice also that the AMA did NOT "denounce" the procedure.
:
: And finally, notice yet another clueless putz repeating pro-lie
: disinformation, thinking that the lies he's been fed have some
: semblance to the truth.
:
: --
:
Ray Fischer
>I listen to what other people have to say. Without insulting them.
Except, apparently, when you don't listen to what people say and when
you do insult them.
> I
>would have respected your opinion more if you had not reverted to a five
>year old mentality at the end of your post.
And so you resort to insults.
> Name calling is something that
>kids do, not adults.
So, which kindergarten do YOU go to?
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
>>r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
>> understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
>
>I wonder if Ray realizes just how much his Brandeis quote applies to him.
Tell us all what liberties I wish to deny anyone.
Show us that you not just a whiny fool who can't think of a real
argument.
Ray Fischer
>hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> rv...@olg.com wrote:
>>> > The reason the brains
>>> > are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This
>portion of
>>> > the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>>
>>> No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
>>
>>Wow.
>>If your nurse pal said so, I'll bet she lost her license . ..
>>fact is, in order to maintain cervical competency,
>>the cervix can be dilated only a small war. SWhippman et al posted
>>the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
>>so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
>>Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
>>replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus. Lot of
>>complications in that one. ask your "nurse" friend.
>
>How about you simply ask anyone who's ever taken an anatomy class?
>
>Before birth, the plates which make up the skull have not fused; this
>is why newborns have the "pointy-headed" look. Their heads DO "collapse"
>to a point during the birthing process, because the skull is not a unit
>at the time.
In order for an infant to be born the cervix needs to dilate to about
10cm. In an IDE abortion the cervix is dilated to about 4cm. Now
then, see if you can figure out which number is bigger.
>However, the brain is not the limiting factor; the size of the skull
>plates are. The brain, a soft organ, can be compressed considerably
>more than hard bone.
Physics 101: Liquids and solids cannot be compressed.
> Removing the brain has NO value in the procedure
>except to ensure a dead fetus.
Pro-lie disinformation.
Ray Fischer
>This procedure has been described in acute detail by pro-life advocates and for good reason.
>It called an "abortion" and it is called partial "birth".
>Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light of day.
>What else does one need to know?
Why.
Children are dying by the tens of thousands daily for want of
$20/month worth of food and water. You spend about that much each
month on internet access.
What else does one need to know?
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
>>
>> Your complaint about a medical procedure you know nothing about?
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> >Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
>> >"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
>>
>> And you're an idiot.
>
>In the absence of rational justification, not even capable of 'ad hominem' one resorts to 'ad
>abusam'.
You just admitted that you know nothing about a procedure which you
compalin about, and make statements which are obviously false to
anyone with brains. That's makes you an idiot. You call people
murderers and then whine about being called an idiot. That makes you
a hypocrite.
What else does one need to know?
--
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >" How, well they pull everything out but the head and
>> > put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
>> > Then they pull the rest of the baby"
>> >One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that sucking the brain out is
>> >unnecessary if the child is dead.
>>
>> But in your case that does seem to be the case.
>>
>> If the head is too big to fit past the cervix then the head needs to
>> be made smaller.
>
>A fortuitous assumption on your part.
Pretty obvious.
> A dead baby makes it all the way down the birth canal.
>Yah all the time. A Cesarian would make more sense to remove the , one would assume -, immobile
>,corpus.
Sure. Slit open the woman's belly to remove a non-viable fetus. Why?
Just so you can make sure that she suffers as much as possible.
"Woman-hating religious fanatic" indeed.
Ray Fischer
>For you continued edification , I have supplied the following information:
>"In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin Haskell, the Ohio doctor widely
>credited with perfecting the
>practice of partial-birth abortion, was asked if the fetus was dead before the procedure is begun.
>"No it's not." Haskell said.
Duh.
So?
>I am sure you will persist in arguing the facts on the basis that people don't know what they are
>talking about.
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 1--Dilation
Day 2--Dilation
Day 3--The Operation
Recovery
5 Ibid, p. 121-128.
6 Ibid, p. 121.
Ray Fischer
>There are NO reasons requiring PBAs.
Where did you get your medical degree? Which hospital did you do your
residency at?
> Get with it. Event the Pro-abort leaders now admit this.
I have seen no such admission. Are you just repeatiung the usual
pro-lie disinformation, or do you actually have some evidence?
>Kate Michaelman, NARAL leader, admitted in a debate at Georgetown Univ. that "yes, something
>is killed".
"Something is killed" every time you eat. So what?
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
>> her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more,
>
>Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
And they're more dangerous than vaginal births and a lot more
dangerous than abortions. Do you care?
> Why the squeamishness with dead fetuses?
Why the squeamishness with abortions?
>At least the
>anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
And if you don't give a shit about the woman, then what does it matter
if you force major surgery upon her and put her in the hospital for a
few days?
SWhippman
>>Bob and Martha Vera wrote:
>Heretic wrote:
In article <35EBBCCF...@olg.com>, Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com>
writes:
>> > > The reason the brains
>> > > are removed is to make the skull easier to collapse. Note: This
>portion of
>> > > the procedure is unnecesssary for anacephalic babies.
>>
>> > No! It is to guarantee a dead baby delivery.
>>
>> Wow.
>> If your nurse pal said so, I'll bet she lost her license . ..
>
>No, DORK! That is the whole problem with the procedure.
And on what authority are you stating this? Someone who saw the procedure
three times? Practically all the fetuses on which it's done are non-viable
anyway, and would die immediately if delivered (which is the way that
mid/late-term abortions are done in England, incidentally).
>> fact is, in order to maintain cervical competency,
>> the cervix can be dilated only a small war.
>
>Actually, the doctor gives the woman a treatment to enlarge the cervix.
>Brenda
>explanined this to me once, but I have forgotten them.
Looks like it. The laminaria treatment forces the cervical opening wider, and
there are limits to how far this can be done without damaging it. It would be
possible to induce labour and make the cervix dilate in that way, but this
would mean putting the woman through hours of labour to deliver a stillborn
fetus, which is a far more unpleasant procedure for her. With the laminaria,
the cervix can be dilated far enough to get the fetal body through and to get
the collapsed, emptied skull through - but not to get an intact fetal skull of
this gestation through.
>> SWhippman et al posted
>> the stats on that. The skull is the widest part of the fetal body,
>> so as to not rip the woman apart, the skull has to be collapsed.
>> Or maybe you'd prefer the procedure that ID&E was developed to
>> replace? The fetus is chopped up inside the uterus.
>
>I would prefer that abortions be made illegal. How YOU kill the child is not
>siginificant to me.
Then why all this fuss about one procedure in particular?
>> Lot of
>> complications in that one. ask your "nurse" friend.
>>
>
>Not really.
Yes, there are. Read up on it.
(snip a bunch more)
Regards,
Sarah
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it
on you, you'll be taller than everybody else.'
Rudyard Kipling as adapted by `I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue'
Jesse
Stephanie Marie Lou Newland
> The Church is Satan!!!!
>
Really Jesse,
You are entitled to your opinion but unless you have something to say about
the church's position on abortion (and then it would behoove you to find
the position of a specific church since many of them differ on their
approaches to abortion) posts like this belong on alt.atheism or similar
newsgroups.
-Stephanie
SWhippman
In article <35ECCC75...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Cesarians are not uncommon in live births. Why the squeamishness with dead
>fetuses?At least the
>anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
The reason Caesarians are done in live births is to remove the fetus without
killing it, in cases where, for whatever reason, vaginal delivery is too risky
an option. It is a bigger procedure for the woman, more risky, with a longer
recovery time, causing more problems in future pregnancies than a vaginal
delivery, and it is therefore _not_ done except in cases where removing the
fetus can't feasiby be done vaginally. In the case of abortion, not only are
the doctors not trying to save the life of a wanted child, but in practically
all cases it isn't even possible to save the life of the fetus after removal,
as it's too immature. Performing a Caesarian means subjecting the woman to all
the above risks without any benefit. That sufficient reason for you?
SWhippman
>>Ray Lanthier wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
In article <35ECC9D....@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that
>sucking the brain out is
>> >unnecessary if the child is dead.
>>
>> But in your case that does seem to be the case.
>>
>> If the head is too big to fit past the cervix then the head needs to
>> be made smaller.
>>
>A fortuitous assumption on your part.
What - that if the head is too big to fit past the cervix then it needs to be
made smaller? Seems pretty self-evident. Precisely which part of that did you
wish to argue with?
> A dead baby makes it all the way down the birth canal.
>Yah all the time.
It's pulled out with forceps. BTW, why do you feel a dead fetus is less likely
to be able to emerge down the birth canal than a live fetus??
> A Cesarian would make more sense to remove the , one would assume -, immobile
>corpus.
Why in the world would subjecting a woman to risky abdominal surgery make more
sense than an outpatient procedure under local anaesthetic that doesn't carry
nearly so much risk?
SWhippman
In article <35ECCAC5...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Maybe F. Fisher knows something we don't.
Not only possible but likely, I have to say.
> But how does a dead fetus make its
>way down the birth
>canal to the cervix?
In the case of IDE, by being pulled down by forceps. In the case of
stillbirth, by being expelled by uterine contractions in the same way as a live
fetus. What in the world do you mean by `make its way'?? (picturing a fetus
swimming breast-stroke to emerge from the birth canal...)
> If this is what happens, I thought it was known as still
>birth, and did not
>require drilling the skull.
Birth doesn't, because uterine contractions dilate the cervix until the whole
skull can emerge. IDE does, because the cervix is only dilated a little way.
SWhippman
In article <35ECC6A7...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>This procedure has been described in acute detail by pro-life advocates and
>for good reason.
Yup - it lets them get emotive and misleading.
>It called an "abortion" and it is called partial "birth".
...largely so that pro-lifers can try to convince the great American public
that this procedure is actually been done during what we normally think of as
birth, thus bringing forth the abhorrent spectre of a woman minutes before
birth changing her mind about motherhood on a whim. Which makes it a totally
misleading name, seeing as that's not what happens.
>Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light
>of day.
>What else does one need to know?
In your case, quite a bit, it would appear, if you actually need to ask
questions like `How does a dead fetus make it down the birth canal?' and `Why
can't they just do a Caesarian?'
One question - if that sentence above is all you feel you need to know about
abortion and its morality, why in the world do you spend so much time going on
about one particular procedure?
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >> Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
> >> her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more,
> >
> >Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
>
> And they're more dangerous than vaginal births
C-Sections are more dangerous than PBA's! The forced removal of the fetus through the birth canal
and the full dilation of the cervix, is safer than the surgery required for a C-Section? Which BTW
can hardly be called a birth.Medical proof please.
> and a lot more
> dangerous than abortions. Do you care?
>
> > Why the squeamishness with dead fetuses?
>
> Why the squeamishness with abortions?
Because they are deliberate killings. If the fetus is already dead, I don't care about it. But it
actually seems harder on the women to pull a dead fetus through her cervix, than to perform
surgery.
>
>
> >At least the
> >anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
>
> And if you don't give a shit about the woman, then what does it matter
> if you force major surgery
PBA is not a trivial procedure. And if it involves a dead fetus my concern is entirely with the
woman.Your objection to what you call major surgery is obviously an excuse to perform abortions on
live fetuses.
> upon her and put her in the hospital for a
> few days?
>
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com> wrote:
> >There are NO reasons requiring PBAs.
>
> Where did you get your medical degree? Which hospital did you do your
> residency at?
>
> > Get with it. Event the Pro-abort leaders now admit this.
>
> I have seen no such admission. Are you just repeatiung the usual
> pro-lie disinformation, or do you actually have some evidence?
>
> >Kate Michaelman, NARAL leader, admitted in a debate at Georgetown Univ. that "yes, something
> >is killed".
>
> "Something is killed" every time you eat. So what?
>
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >This procedure has been described in acute detail by pro-life advocates and for good reason.
> >It called an "abortion" and it is called partial "birth".
> >Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light of day.
> >What else does one need to know?
>
> Why.
>
> Children are dying by the tens of thousands daily for want of
> $20/month worth of food and water. You spend about that much each
> month on internet access.
>
> What else does one need to know?
>
How you manage to make such obvious ad hoc rationalizations without ever coming to your senses
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >If there ever was a clear case of ad hoc rationalization , this is it.
> >>
> >> Your complaint about a medical procedure you know nothing about?
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> >Outside the need to abort and the artificial made-to-order belief system to justify it, the
> >> >"medical" procedure of "partial birth" abortion, is un-problematic - it is murder.
> >>
> >> And you're an idiot.
> >
> >In the absence of rational justification, not even capable of 'ad hominem' one resorts to 'ad
> >abusam'.
>
> You just admitted that you know nothing about a procedure which you
> compalin about, and make statements which are obviously false to
> anyone with brains. That's makes you an idiot. You call people
> murderers and then whine about being called an idiot. That makes you
> a hypocrite.
>
> What else does one need to know?
>
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >For you continued edification , I have supplied the following information:
> >"In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin Haskell, the Ohio doctor widely
> >credited with perfecting the
> >practice of partial-birth abortion, was asked if the fetus was dead before the procedure is begun.
> >"No it's not." Haskell said.
>
> Duh.
>
> So?
Now we get to the heart of the matter. You disdain human life. But you are so concerned about the
suffering of women. They suffer less with an abortion - a partial birth abortion?Duh.
Ray Lanthier
People undergo surgery for all sorts of reasons.
If PBA where the most human way of removing dead fetuses, then good.
But it just your twisted excuse for aborting live fetuses in late term.
I don't hate women, I love human life. I thought that's what women were.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >" How, well they pull everything out but the head and
> >> > put a hole in its neck and suck its brain out to collapse the skull.
> >> > Then they pull the rest of the baby"
> >> >One does not have to be a woman-hating religious fanatic to realize that sucking the brain out is
> >> >unnecessary if the child is dead.
> >>
> >> But in your case that does seem to be the case.
> >>
> >> If the head is too big to fit past the cervix then the head needs to
> >> be made smaller.
> >
> >A fortuitous assumption on your part.
>
> Pretty obvious.
>
> > A dead baby makes it all the way down the birth canal.
> >Yah all the time. A Cesarian would make more sense to remove the , one would assume -, immobile
> >,corpus.
>
> Sure. Slit open the woman's belly to remove a non-viable fetus. Why?
> Just so you can make sure that she suffers as much as possible.
>
> "Woman-hating religious fanatic" indeed.
>
c...@iea.com
rv...@olg.com wrote:
> Hey Ray,
>
> When you are ready to face reality, you deal with it. The whole procedure of PBA is to
> gurantee a dead baby. The method fits the desired result perfectly.
>
> I realize that it is hard for you to understand. This is a method that is not in any way
> required. The procedure is stated as being such by Dr. Haskell himself.
>
I'm not sure I can think of ANY medical procedure that is "required." That
is why doctors might ADVISE a patient as to what they ought to do, but never
force them. The closest you could come is when a doctor operates on a
comatose or incapacitated patient, or upon one close to death. In either of
these events the doctor is doing what she thinks is best for the patient.
Let's say you are suffering from a head cold. I might suggest you could take
aspirin. This wouldn't likely hurt you very much, or cost you very much. I
could alternatively suggest we remove one of your lungs. This will cause you
some measure of discomfort, even if we use anathesia. It will also cost you
substantially more.
The "PBA" abortion is like that. If you have decided to abort an acephalic
fetus, you could get a C-section. The baby will die anyway, but you will
suffer more and pay more than you would if instead you opt for an episiotomy.
(Another unnecessary and painful medical procedure, in light of the
availability of the "PB" abortion).
Whatever you choose to do, medical decisions should be left in your hands and
the hands of your private doctor, subject to review by duly licensed medical
boards. They should NOT also involve your clergy, grocer, or a group of
lawyers and legislators in some remote place.
If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
could find very many people opposing you. But I would still be a little
suspicious of your motives, I admit, as I am after reading stuff like what
you've written above. What are your REAL objectives?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
c...@iea.com
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Maybe F. Fisher knows something we don't. But how does a dead fetus make its way down the birth
> canal to the cervix? If this is what happens, I thought it was known as still birth, and did not
> require drilling the skull.
We live in a wonderful age, where low-birth weight babies are not all that
common. In the old days, when nutrition wasn't so good as it is now, having
a baby wasn't always quite as big a deal. It was still a pretty significant
event, if you examine historical records of the number of women who died in
childbirth. In the good old days such motherless orphans were much more
common than they are today.
Anyway, some significant fraction of births require a c-section. A friend of
my wife's just delivered, the baby was not coming out the old fashioned way
no matter what. In her case the baby was alive and well, and her pregnancy
did not jeopardize her health. She could not have found an abortion doctor
if her life depended on it. (Well, maybe not quite THAT extreme, but damn
close). Still, if her baby was dead, there would be no point for her to lug
it around, with all the attendant problems that causes, until it had to be
c-sectioned anyway. It is under such circumstances that the so-called "PBA"
most commonly becomes a useful and rightly considered medical proceudre. As
the child's head is the largest part of its body, and causes the most grief
typically to the mother during birth, collapsing it is the way to go. Out
the fetus comes, ready for the research labs, or for the doctors who need
material for curing Parkinson's disease, or whatever. Waste not, want not!
What case was I arguing here?
I say let them have safe, cost-effective, less painful abortions, abortions
that require much shorter hospital stays, if that is what they require.
Don't let the law-givers get in there and muck things up. Some day it may be
YOUR wife in the stirrups, and dead baby up the canal, and YOU'LL have to
pony up for ill-considered, expensive, and unnecessary medical procedures
because you couldn't resist interfering where you didn't belong.
Bill Nourse
> If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
> of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
> could find very many people opposing you.
Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
And that is a grave moral evil.
I've tried to stay out of this thread, but I just couldn't let that one
get by.
--
Charles W. ("Bill") Nourse, Ed.D., CPP
"Establish yourself in God and then you will be helpful to others."
-- St. Seraphim of Sarov
Pat Winstanley
<nou...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> writes
>c...@iea.com wrote:
>
>> If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
>> of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
>> could find very many people opposing you.
>
>Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
>want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
>specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
>59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
Who are "THEY" that want this? Certainly no pro-choice or pro-life
person I know of. Who do you have in mind?
Most pro-choice people are for pretty severe restrictions in the later
third of the pregnancy (severe health/life threat to woman, severe
foetal abnormality), but a free choice in the first third... and a
mixture of attitudes for the second term.
Most pro-life people are for severe restrictions throughout but always
at any stage some exceptions (such as rape, incest, woman's life).
So *who* are the people who apparently want abortion on demand for any
reason or no reason right up to and during normal labour?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<rlan...@earthlink.net> writes
>If PBA where the most human way of removing dead fetuses, then good.
>But it just your twisted excuse for aborting live fetuses in late term.
It's a METHOD, not an excuse, and is more humane for both the foetus and
the woman than other available methods such as induction and D&E. All
will achieve the same basic result (that of terminating the pregnancy),
none are easy, and nobody would undergo any of those procedures but for
compelling reasons...
OBTW, It isn't a late-term procedure, it's a predominantly mid term
(pre-viability) procedure that occasionally is used in late term.
--
Pat Winstanley
c...@iea.com
nou...@NOSPAM.Juno.com wrote:
> c...@iea.com wrote:
>
> > If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
> > of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
> > could find very many people opposing you.
>
> Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
> want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
> specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
> 59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
>
> I've tried to stay out of this thread, but I just couldn't let that one
Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
fetuses?
By elective, I mean the mother's health is not endangered. By "healthy
fetus," I mean the baby has no evident genetic defects or physiological
problems.
Stephanie Marie Lou Newland
> In article <35EE10...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net>, Bill Nourse
> <nou...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> writes
> >c...@iea.com wrote:
> >
> >> If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
> >> of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
> >> could find very many people opposing you.
> >
> >Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
> >want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
> >specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
> >59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
>
> Who are "THEY" that want this? Certainly no pro-choice or pro-life
> person I know of. Who do you have in mind?
>
> So *who* are the people who apparently want abortion on demand for any
> reason or no reason right up to and during normal labour?
Mary Anne Warren, Associate Professor of Philosophy at SFSU, "On the Moral
and Legal Status of Abortion":
"...a woman's right to protect her health, happiness, freedom,
and even her life (her footnote on this points out that the death rate
for childbirth is higher than that for *early* abortion) by terminating an
unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be
appropriate to ascribe to a fetus, _even a fully developed one_.[emphasis
added] And thus, in the absence of any overwhelming social need for
every possible child, the laws which restrict the right to obtain an
abortion, _or limit the period of pregnancy during which an abortion may
be performed_[emphasis added], are a wholly unjustified violation of a
woman's most basic moral and constitutional rights."
Bill Nourse
>
> In article <35EE10...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net>, Bill Nourse
> <nou...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> writes
> >c...@iea.com wrote:
> >
> >> If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
> >> of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
> >> could find very many people opposing you.
> >
> >Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
> >want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
> >specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
> >59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
>
> Who are "THEY" that want this? Certainly no pro-choice or pro-life
> person I know of. Who do you have in mind?
>
> third of the pregnancy (severe health/life threat to woman, severe
> foetal abnormality), but a free choice in the first third... and a
> mixture of attitudes for the second term.
>
> Most pro-life people are for severe restrictions throughout but always
> at any stage some exceptions (such as rape, incest, woman's life).
>
> reason or no reason right up to and during normal labour?
>
> Pat Winstanley
FROM "THE FEDERALIST" forwarded to me by a friend:
"FAMILY IN BRIEF/SLIPPERY SLOPES IN ACADEMIA
Peter Singer is a "bioethicist." He helped launch the animal rights
movement. He also believes that it´s ethical to kill newborns with
major birth defects. And he´s the
newest tenured faculty member of Princeton University . . . .
Ms. Amy Gutmann, director of Princeton´s University Center for Human
Values, says, ´´In appointing Professor Singer, Princeton University and
the UCVA reaffirm our dedication to open, careful, and critical
intellectual inquiry into the most difficult and controversial questions
regarding our individual and collective lives. Princeton
would be impoverished without professors whose work is intellectually
provocative, as is Professor Singer´s." . . . "
I suggest that infanticide is neither a "human value" nor
"intellectually provocative," but simply a logical extension of the
theory of unfettered "right" to abortion on demand.
Further, the issue is premised on defining the unborn as "not a
person." This argument has been made many times on this NG, including
the position that a "fetus" does not receive a soul (and is therefore
not a "person") until it is actually born. One might also argue that
the "baby" does not receive a soul and become a "person" until some
later time, on some other basis.
Control of one's "own body" is also a frequent premise for unrestricted
abortion. If this is indeed the logical basis, then cannibalism must
also be allowed on precisely the same basis; all that is necessary is to
define those to be eaten "not persons." Same for slavery, genocide,
etc., etc. as we have seen comparatively recently in human history.
So, "they" are Professor Peter Singer and others I've heard countless
times argue for unrestricted, unregulated abortion as a purely "private"
matter. Sorry, but I just don't agree.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
> would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
> fetuses?
I asked this question about 6 months ago, but I asked it in the reverse.
It will be interesting to see if you get any yeses this way, when I asked
if they'd support such a bill, it was full of resounding nos.
The only regular pro-choicer who might vote that she'd NOT oppose such a
bill is Pat.
> By elective, I mean the mother's health is not endangered. By "healthy
> fetus," I mean the baby has no evident genetic defects or physiological
> problems.
That's an important pair of qualifiers.
But what if the "evident gentic defect" is blond hair?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in government of the people, for the people, by the people,
and in fact no separation between people and government, click on the
above link.
Bert Bishop
>In article <35EE10...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net>,
> nou...@NOSPAM.Juno.com wrote:
>> c...@iea.com wrote:
>>
>> > If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
>> > of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
>> > could find very many people opposing you.
>>
>> Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
>> want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
>> specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
>> 59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
>> And that is a grave moral evil.
>>
>> I've tried to stay out of this thread, but I just couldn't let that one
>> get by. Bill Nourse
>Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
>would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
>fetuses?
>By elective, I mean the mother's health is not endangered. By "healthy
>fetus," I mean the baby has no evident genetic defects or physiological
>problems.
But you didn't define late term. 26 weeks and later? I wouldn't oppose it
with any energy. Physician defined mental health would be have to be part of
"mother's health".
Pat Winstanley
>Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
>would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
>fetuses?
I would not oppose such a bill, and in fact would probably support it.
--
Pat Winstanley
Matt Pillsbury
>In article <35EE10...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net>,
> nou...@NOSPAM.Juno.com wrote:
[...]
>Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
>would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
>fetuses?
>By elective, I mean the mother's health is not endangered. By "healthy
>fetus," I mean the baby has no evident genetic defects or physiological
>problems.
As long as it's doctors that determine what health indications are
appropriate, I wouldn't object. 40 states already have similar laws,
which restrict post-viability abortions.
--
Matt Pillsbury "Like in a dirty French novel
pil...@brown.edu The absurd courts the vulgar."
--The Velvet Underground
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Maybe F. Fisher knows something we don't.
I'd say it's a fair bet that Ray knows a lot more about purt
near anything than you do.
> But how does a dead fetus make its
way down the birth
> canal to the cervix?
ROTFLMFAO
My Goddess, you are really uninformed, aren't you?
Fitst of all, you need to review some basic anatomy.
There is no such thing as a "birth canal" it is a colloquial
expression to avoid using words like "vagina."
The fetus is curled up in the uterus, which is pear-shaped
(upside down, dear) and teh cervix is the opening of
the uterus, leading to the vagina. Got it? Since the
uterus expands as the fetus does, it's rather a tight fit.
No "way to make" if you will. It's kinda sitting on the cervix
(in so many words--I'm trying to keep this simple!)
Because the ID&E method is used mid-pregnancy, the cervix has
not "softend" suffieciently to dilate enough to permit passage
of the skull, which is the widest part of the fetal body.
To preserve cervical competency, so that a future pregnancy
possible, the skull must be collapsed.
Perhaps you would prefer a method that caused more
traumea and complications to the woman? That is why
ID&E was developed.
> If this is what happens, I thought it was known as still
birth, and did not
> require drilling the skull.
There are many causes of "stillbirth" including death of the fetus
DURING the birth process.
Look, you are obviously too uniformed on the subject to understand it.
Try doing a bit of MEDICAL research, and stop getting your "information"
from rtloonie sources.
Heretic
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
rv...@olg.com wrote:
> There are NO reasons requiring PBAs. Get with it. Event the Pro-abort leaders
now admit this.
That is absolute bullshit.
Cite a verifiable source for that bizarre assertion.
> That is all I am saying.
We already know you are a complete idiot with no
knowledge of the subject at hand.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
Many MEDICAL experts say there are too many of them in
this country. And a C-section is done for the advantage of
the fetus, but of course, the WOMAN is harmed quite a bit by it.
I suppose that doesn't bother you much, does it?
> Why the squeamishness with dead
fetuses?At least the
> anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
YOu fetus freaks are disgusting.
You seem to think women are simply walking wombs.
You have NO understanding of medical matters, which is
why you and your politicos have no business dictating what
medical procedures are needed for another person.
Can I tell YOUR doctor what to do about YOU?
You don't want to hear what method I'd tell them
to use on your prostate . . .
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light of day.
>> >What else does one need to know?
>>
>> Why.
>>
>> Children are dying by the tens of thousands daily for want of
>> $20/month worth of food and water. You spend about that much each
>> month on internet access.
>>
>> What else does one need to know?
>
>How you manage to make such obvious ad hoc rationalizations without ever coming to your senses
I'm not rationalizing anything, coward. I just observe that you
demand the servitude of women in order to save lives, and you you
remain free to enjoy your amusements while children are dying.
Rather than attack me for exposing your hypocrisy, why don't you
instead try stop being a hypocrite?
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >For you continued edification , I have supplied the following information:
>> >"In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin Haskell, the Ohio doctor widely
>> >credited with perfecting the
>> >practice of partial-birth abortion, was asked if the fetus was dead before the procedure is begun.
>> >"No it's not." Haskell said.
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>> So?
>
>Now we get to the heart of the matter. You disdain human life.
And you are a lying asshole.
Tell how much you care for human life while you force women to die and
turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of children dead each DAY of
hunger.
Ray Fischer
>Have you had therapy for these paranoid delusions?
Have you tried going to school to educate yourself? A high school
equivalency shouldn't take you more than a year or two of night
school.
>People undergo surgery for all sorts of reasons.
People die every day. Does that mean I may kill you?
>If PBA where the most human way of removing dead fetuses, then good.
>But it just your twisted excuse for aborting live fetuses in late term.
Prove it.
>I don't hate women, I love human life.
Pro-lie propaganda.
> I thought that's what women were.
Looks to me like you think they're breeding slaves.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
>> >> her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more,
>> >
>> >Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
>>
>> And they're more dangerous than vaginal births
>
>C-Sections are more dangerous than PBA's!
That too.
> The forced removal of the fetus through the birth canal
"Through the birth canal"
>and the full dilation of the cervix, is safer than the surgery required for a C-Section?
Shit yes. Bodies are built to give birth. Bodies are not made to be
cut open. Try it on yourself some time and see what happens.
> Which BTW
>can hardly be called a birth.Medical proof please.
Slitting open a woman's belly has a much longer recovery, runs
conserably more risk of infection. It is _surgery_.
Proof was just posted. Doubtless you chose to ignore it.
>> > Why the squeamishness with dead fetuses?
>>
>> Why the squeamishness with abortions?
>
>Because they are deliberate killings.
You delibertately kill several times each day.
> If the fetus is already dead, I don't care about it. But it
>actually seems harder on the women to pull a dead fetus through her cervix,
"Seems" . Given you lack of education, I'd hardly consider your
opinion to be worth anything.
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >For you continued edification , I have supplied the following information:
> >> >"In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin Haskell, the Ohio doctor widely
> >> >credited with perfecting the
> >> >practice of partial-birth abortion, was asked if the fetus was dead before the procedure is begun.
> >> >"No it's not." Haskell said.
> >>
> >> Duh.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >Now we get to the heart of the matter. You disdain human life.
>
> And you are a lying asshole.
>
> Tell how much you care for human life while you force women to die and
> turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of children dead each DAY of
> hunger.
>
Ray Lanthier
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <35EE0883...@earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> writes
> >If PBA where the most human way of removing dead fetuses, then good.
> >But it just your twisted excuse for aborting live fetuses in late term.
>
> It's a METHOD, not an excuse, and is more humane for both the foetus
Your concern for the fetus is quite moving. If it is dead it does not need your concern.If it is
alive , I am not sure that drilling a hole in its neck is particularily humane.
> and
> the woman than other available methods such as induction and D&E. All
> will achieve the same basic result (that of terminating the pregnancy),
> none are easy, and nobody would undergo any of those procedures but for
> compelling reasons...
Partial-birth abortions are performed routinely on mothers from 4 1/2 months into the
pregnancythough full-term. 90 percent of
partial-birth abortions are done during the fifth and sixth months. But the overwhelming
majority
are performed on healthy
babies carried by healthy mothers for purely elective reasons. In an interview with the
American
Medical News, Dr. Haskell
said, "I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective in that range"
>
>
>
> OBTW, It isn't a late-term procedure, it's a predominantly mid term
> (pre-viability) procedure that occasionally is used in late term.
>
>
see above.
> --
> Pat Winstanley
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >> >> Sure. If you don't give a shit about the woman you can jsut slit open
> >> >> her belly and remove the fetus intact. She'll suffer a lot more,
> >> >
> >> >Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
> >>
> >> And they're more dangerous than vaginal births
> >
> >C-Sections are more dangerous than PBA's!
>
> That too.
>
> > The forced removal of the fetus through the birth canal
>
> "Through the birth canal"
>
> >and the full dilation of the cervix, is safer than the surgery required for a C-Section?
>
> Shit yes. Bodies are built to give birth.
Not to take deliberate abortions.
> Bodies are not made to be
> cut open. Try it on yourself some time and see what happens.
Weird logic. Many people have had surgery and recovered quite successfully.
>
>
> > Which BTW
> >can hardly be called a birth.Medical proof please.
>
> Slitting open a woman's belly has a much longer recovery, runs
> conserably more risk of infection. It is _surgery_.
>
Actually , if this didn't sound like an obvious excuse for performing mid to late term abortions - I
would think it is irrelevant, whether a woman chooses to abort with PBA or D&E.Rep. Tom Coburn,
R-Okla., an obstetrician who leaves Congress and goes home on weekends to
deliver
babies, states this
method of abortion was invented for one reason only -- greed. With partial-birth abortion,
money-hungry abortionists can
perform abortions up to full-term.
> Proof was just posted. Doubtless you chose to ignore it.
>
> >> > Why the squeamishness with dead fetuses?
> >>
> >> Why the squeamishness with abortions?
> >
> >Because they are deliberate killings.
>
> You delibertately kill several times each day.
>
You're delusional. Who am I killing?
> > If the fetus is already dead, I don't care about it. But it
> >actually seems harder on the women to pull a dead fetus through her cervix,
>
> "Seems" . Given you lack of education, I'd hardly consider your
> opinion to be worth anything.
>
"Seems" is not opinionated . I shouldn't bite your obvious bait - but here goes.I have a degree in
Mathematics , Science. I am a professional computer programmer and consultant. Again you are talking
through your lower orifice.
Ray Lanthier
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Have you had therapy for these paranoid delusions?
>
> Have you tried going to school to educate yourself? A high school
> equivalency shouldn't take you more than a year or two of night
> school.
>
How would you know.
> >People undergo surgery for all sorts of reasons.
>
> People die every day. Does that mean I may kill you?
>
After you matriculate, I strongly suggest you take introductory Logic.
> >If PBA where the most human way of removing dead fetuses, then good.
> >But it just your twisted excuse for aborting live fetuses in late term.
>
> Prove it.
>
The statistic show that is exactly what is happening.
> >I don't hate women, I love human life.
>
> Pro-lie propaganda.
>
Loving human life doesn't need propaganda.
> > I thought that's what women were.
>
> Looks to me like you think they're breeding slaves.
>
You're babbling.
Ray Lanthier
I have never heard such a twisted set of sentences since I read the ravings of a serial killer.
I am hardly afraid, or I would be oh so afraid of you.
As for my single-handedly putting women in servitude , that is just so much self-serving political
rhetoric.
Objecting to brutal abortions or even easier brutal abortions, does not put women in servitude.
Your desperate attempt to tie pro-life issues with woman-hatred are futile.
Pro-life is pro-motherhood and I believe that is the exclusive province of women.
The difficulty of aborting a fetus in later pregancy is the natrue of things. Babies were meant to
born, not aborted. If you think that enslaves women, take it up with God.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Living fetuses are being destroyed before they have a chance to see the light of day.
> >> >What else does one need to know?
> >>
> >> Why.
> >>
> >> Children are dying by the tens of thousands daily for want of
> >> $20/month worth of food and water. You spend about that much each
> >> month on internet access.
> >>
> >> What else does one need to know?
> >
> >How you manage to make such obvious ad hoc rationalizations without ever coming to your senses
>
> I'm not rationalizing anything, coward. I just observe that you
> demand the servitude of women in order to save lives, and you you
> remain free to enjoy your amusements while children are dying.
>
> Rather than attack me for exposing your hypocrisy, why don't you
> instead try stop being a hypocrite?
>
Ray Lanthier
hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35ECCC75...@earthlink.net>,
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Cesarians are not uncommon in live births.
>
> Many MEDICAL experts say there are too many of them in
> this country. And a C-section is done for the advantage of
> the fetus, but of course, the WOMAN is harmed quite a bit by it.
> I suppose that doesn't bother you much, does it?
>
I am sure anesthetics are used.It is unfortunate that the women have to be surgically injured, but
I have not heard that many women who voluntarily saw their pregnancy to term did not think it was
worth it.
The interests of the about-to-born baby are not at odds with the interests of the mother.
Many of them get pregnant on purpose.
Pitting women against motherhood is a pro-abort political strategy and it doesn't take much
education to figure that out.
> > Why the squeamishness with dead
> fetuses?At least the
> > anesthetic won't harm the fetus.
>
Exactly what you were when your mother decided not to abort.
> YOu fetus freaks are disgusting.
> You seem to think women are simply walking wombs.
>
Women who are pregant are more than walking wombs, paranoid, they are called mothers, the most
beautiful of human beings.
> You have NO understanding of medical matters,
I know what abortions are. I worked in a Medical Insurance companiy and had to read the details of
abortion procedures where the failed abortions were called POC.Do you know what that means?
> which is
> why you and your politicos have no business dictating what
> medical procedures are needed for another person.
>
There are many medical professionals who object to abortion. You are dreaming.
> Can I tell YOUR doctor what to do about YOU?
> You don't want to hear what method I'd tell them
> to use on your prostate . . .
>
When have I suggested that women should have their ovaries removed? I am PRO-life remember?
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35ECCAC5...@earthlink.net>,
> Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Maybe F. Fisher knows something we don't.
>
> I'd say it's a fair bet that Ray knows a lot more about purt
> near anything than you do.
>
> > But how does a dead fetus make its
> way down the birth
> > canal to the cervix?
>
> ROTFLMFAO
> My Goddess, you are really uninformed, aren't you?
> Fitst of all, you need to review some basic anatomy.
> There is no such thing as a "birth canal" it is a colloquial
> expression
True. So you know what I mean.
> to avoid using words like "vagina."
I have managed to use the word several times, whenever appropriate.
> The fetus is curled up in the uterus, which is pear-shaped
> (upside down, dear) and teh cervix is the opening of
> the uterus, leading to the vagina. Got it? Since the
> uterus expands as the fetus does, it's rather a tight fit.
> No "way to make" if you will. It's kinda sitting on the cervix
> (in so many words--I'm trying to keep this simple!)
> Because the ID&E method is used mid-pregnancy, the cervix has
> not "softend" suffieciently to dilate enough to permit passage
> of the skull, which is the widest part of the fetal body.
No kidding.
> To preserve cervical competency, so that a future pregnancy
> possible, the skull must be collapsed.
> Perhaps you would prefer a method that caused more
> traumea and complications to the woman?
Yah I want them to have abortions so they will be traumatized. Minimal logic please.I don't recall
saying or even implying that. I neither developed nor participated in the development of abortive
procedures that cause pain to women.All this redundant patronizing because I used a colloquialism?
You WISH I didn't know the birth process.Since the fetus has to be forcebly removed by collapsing
its skull, I repeat how does a dead one make its way down the vagina?
It was a rhetorical question. Do you know what that means? That one, was not.
I KNOW how the fetus makes its way through the cervix, and finally BY FORCE..
Its being dead has nothing to do with it. In fact, its being dead is not even considered.
> That is why
> ID&E was developed.
>
> > If this is what happens, I thought it was known as still
> birth, and did not
> > require drilling the skull.
>
> There are many causes of "stillbirth" including death of the fetus
> DURING the birth process.
And they did not require the drilling of the skull.I know its hard. But try to maintain minimal
logic.
>
>
> Look, you are obviously too uniformed on the subject to understand it.
> Try doing a bit of MEDICAL research, and stop getting your "information"
> from rtloonie sources.
>
Is rtloonie a technical term? I don't pretend to be a gynocological expert. But I am informed enough
to know PBA is not invented to get rid of dead fetuses. It was invented to make mid to late term
abortions easier. That is medical fact.
Ray Lanthier
Stephanie Marie Lou Newland wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> > In article <35EE10...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net>, Bill Nourse
> > <nou...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> writes
> > >c...@iea.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you want to outlaw elective abortions on healthy fetuses when the health
> > >> of the mother is not thereby jeopardized, knock yourself out. I doubt you
> > >> could find very many people opposing you.
> > >
> > >Oh, I think you're wrong about that -- you certainly would. What THEY
> > >want is purely elective abortion on demand, for any reason, or without
> > >specifying a reason, right up until 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes
> > >59 seconds, and in some cases even after that, and no doubt about it.
> >
> > Who are "THEY" that want this? Certainly no pro-choice or pro-life
> > person I know of. Who do you have in mind?
> >
> > So *who* are the people who apparently want abortion on demand for any
> > reason or no reason right up to and during normal labour?
>
> Mary Anne Warren, Associate Professor of Philosophy at SFSU, "On the Moral
> and Legal Status of Abortion":
> "...a woman's right to protect her health, happiness, freedom,
> and even her life (her footnote on this points out that the death rate
> for childbirth is higher than that for *early* abortion) by terminating an
> unwanted pregnancy, will always override
On what moral grounds? An individual's rights never outweigh those of another, unless the other is
doing positive , life-threatening harm to the individual.How often does a developing fetus do that
kind of harm?
This pseudo-ethical pronouncement is saying nothing but that the fetus has no rights.
> whatever right to life it may be
> appropriate to ascribe to a fetus, _even a fully developed one_.[emphasis
> added] And thus, in the absence of any overwhelming social need
The birthing of children is justified as a social need? At what quantum point does the child grow
enough to be allowed the right to live beyond simply serving a social need?
> for
> every possible child, the laws which restrict the right to obtain an
> abortion, _or limit the period of pregnancy during which an abortion may
> be performed_[emphasis added], are a wholly unjustified violation of a
> woman's most basic moral and constitutional rights."
Aborting any child for any reason is a basic MORAL right? If this is morality , then anything is.
Ray Lanthier
Gregory Bernath wrote:
> Bill Nourse <nou...@NOSPAM.Juno.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Singer is a "bioethicist."
>
> [snip]
>
> Ah, the Singer bogeyman is raised again. If the man didn't exist, the
> pro-life side would have to invent him, or find someone else similar.
>
> I'd never heard of Singer before pro-lifers started claiming I was one
> of his followers. Outside a small academic circle, the man is a non-issue.
> Most pro-choicers have never heard of him, and don't care one whit about
> his philosophies.
>
> >I suggest that infanticide is neither a "human value" nor
> >"intellectually provocative," but simply a logical extension of the
> >theory of unfettered "right" to abortion on demand.
>
> You fail to show how it's a "logical extension". The right to abortion
> works both with a bodily autonomy or a nonperson argument, neither of
> which can be extended to allow killing newborns.
>
> However, it's generally the pro-life side that says fetuses are people,
> but that it's okay to kill these people under certain circumstances. There's
> a philosophy that starts slipping down the slope to infanticide.
>
> >Further, the issue is premised on defining the unborn as "not a
> >person." This argument has been made many times on this NG, including
> >the position that a "fetus" does not receive a soul (and is therefore
> >not a "person") until it is actually born. One might also argue that
> >the "baby" does not receive a soul and become a "person" until some
> >later time, on some other basis.
>
> Since you do the same thing -- defining things as persons or nonpersons
> according to your own subjective criteria
There are perfectly objective criteria for defining things, as you call then, as persons.They are no
different than the ones that "define" you as a person.
You are living a sentient human being. The human form of life , apart from serious pathlogies, is
never impersonal. There is no metaphysically favored event, beyond the creation of a unique viable
organism, to warrant the criterion of human personality is anything but human
life. There are no sufficiently dramatic organic or biological changes at birth, to serve as
"another birth" - namely the human person.
> -- you're hardly in a position
> to criticize others for doing the same. Especially when your criteria
> are the ones contradicting several millenia of social and legal precedence.
>
Several MILLENIA? All those Hindus who consider abortion immoral. The centuries of Judao-Christian
morality proscribing it.
> >Control of one's "own body" is also a frequent premise for unrestricted
> >abortion. If this is indeed the logical basis, then cannibalism must
> >also be allowed on precisely the same basis;
>
> If you kill someone, you are denying them control over their own body. The
> pro-choice argument forbids that.
Finally you got it! You are denying the fetus , baby-to-be, the right to control its body.
>
>
> >all that is necessary is to define those to be eaten "not persons."
>
> Like you do, every time you eat a meal?
>
> >Same for slavery, genocide, etc., etc. as we have seen comparatively
> >recently in human history.
>
> You have a profound misunderstanding of what "control over one's own body"
> entails. It doesn't mean "control over someone else's body".
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
The Ghost In The Machine
Ray Lanthier <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The classic indifference to human life in the name of woman.
Does this mean that all women shall be barefoot, pregnant, and
eat only fruits and honey?
Remember to have them spit out the seeds. :-)
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Bob & Martha Vera <rv...@olg.com> wrote:
>> >There are NO reasons requiring PBAs.
>>
>> Where did you get your medical degree? Which hospital did you do your
>> residency at?
>>
>> > Get with it. Event the Pro-abort leaders now admit this.
>>
>> I have seen no such admission. Are you just repeatiung the usual
>> pro-lie disinformation, or do you actually have some evidence?
>>
>> >Kate Michaelman, NARAL leader, admitted in a debate at Georgetown Univ. that "yes, something
>> >is killed".
>>
>> "Something is killed" every time you eat. So what?
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
>> r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
>> understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
>
>
>
----
ew...@aimnet.com
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
nou...@NOSPAM.Juno.com wrote:
> FROM "THE FEDERALIST" forwarded to me by a friend:
What's that, some online site of reactionary paranoia
and misinformation?
> "FAMILY IN BRIEF/SLIPPERY SLOPES IN ACADEMIA
> Peter Singer is a "bioethicist." He helped launch the animal rights
> movement. He also believes that it´s ethical to kill newborns with
> major birth defects. And he´s the
> newest tenured faculty member of Princeton University . . . .
Sounds to me like your cybermilitiaheads are
being a bit extreme.
What is the source of Singer's alleged beleif?
I'd like to see it in CONTEXT.
> Ms. Amy Gutmann, director of Princeton´s University Center for Human
> Values, says, ´´In appointing Professor Singer, Princeton University and
> the UCVA reaffirm our dedication to open, careful, and critical
> intellectual inquiry into the most difficult and controversial questions
> regarding our individual and collective lives. Princeton
> would be impoverished without professors whose work is intellectually
> provocative, as is Professor Singer´s." . . . "
Obviously you didn't understand what Gutman said.
Too many big words?
Or do you object to open inquiry?
> I suggest that infanticide
WE are talking about abortion, not infanticide.
> is neither a "human value" nor
> "intellectually provocative," but simply a logical extension of the
> theory of unfettered "right" to abortion on demand.
Infanticide has been quite common in human history.
So has abortion, for that matter, but probably not
as long as infanticide ...
Do you think using extraodinary measures to prolong death
are in the best interest of a newborn?
Hell, at least with animals, it is considered human to
put 'em out of their misery. You, otoh, wnat to prolong
suffering. Yuck.
> Further, the issue is premised on defining the unborn as "not a
> person."
Sorry, old chump, but in fact, all societies with statutory or
common law systems do just that.
> This argument has been made many times on this NG, including
> the position that a "fetus" does not receive a soul (and is therefore
> not a "person") until it is actually born.
Well, that is in the Bible.
But for those of us who don't care about what's in it, so what?
and btw, why didn't YHWH or Jesus or even that poor fornication-
obsessed Saul of Tarsus say anything about abortion? Could it
be that it simply was not an issue for them?
> Control of one's "own body" is also a frequent premise for unrestricted
> abortion.
Yeah. You got a problem with that?
Or is bodily autonomy only something men deserve?
You can't be forced to donate blood, give up organs,
etc to save anyone else--not even your own children, so
why should a fetus get rights human beings don't have?
> If this is indeed the logical basis, then cannibalism must
> also be allowed on precisely the same basis; all that is necessary is to
> define those to be eaten "not persons." Same for slavery, genocide,
> etc., etc. as we have seen comparatively recently in human history.
Never seen a newbie fall down a slippery slope so fast . . ..
with absolutely NO understanding of history!
> So, "they" are Professor Peter Singer and others I've heard countless
> times argue for unrestricted, unregulated abortion as a purely "private"
> matter. Sorry, but I just don't agree.
OK.
How about we eliminate abortions by cryogenically storing sperm and
castrating all men? cheap and 100% effective. works real good with
the livestock industry.
Now, as for me, I think that YOU get to tell ME what I can do with
MY body when I can do the same for YOU.
Real easy to give advice YOU never have to take, old fart.
Gregory Bernath
>Peter Singer is a "bioethicist."
[snip]
Ah, the Singer bogeyman is raised again. If the man didn't exist, the
pro-life side would have to invent him, or find someone else similar.
I'd never heard of Singer before pro-lifers started claiming I was one
of his followers. Outside a small academic circle, the man is a non-issue.
Most pro-choicers have never heard of him, and don't care one whit about
his philosophies.
>I suggest that infanticide is neither a "human value" nor
>"intellectually provocative," but simply a logical extension of the
>theory of unfettered "right" to abortion on demand.
You fail to show how it's a "logical extension". The right to abortion
works both with a bodily autonomy or a nonperson argument, neither of
which can be extended to allow killing newborns.
However, it's generally the pro-life side that says fetuses are people,
but that it's okay to kill these people under certain circumstances. There's
a philosophy that starts slipping down the slope to infanticide.
>Further, the issue is premised on defining the unborn as "not a
>person." This argument has been made many times on this NG, including
>the position that a "fetus" does not receive a soul (and is therefore
>not a "person") until it is actually born. One might also argue that
>the "baby" does not receive a soul and become a "person" until some
>later time, on some other basis.
Since you do the same thing -- defining things as persons or nonpersons
according to your own subjective criteria -- you're hardly in a position
to criticize others for doing the same. Especially when your criteria
are the ones contradicting several millenia of social and legal precedence.
>Control of one's "own body" is also a frequent premise for unrestricted
>abortion. If this is indeed the logical basis, then cannibalism must
>also be allowed on precisely the same basis;
If you kill someone, you are denying them control over their own body. The
pro-choice argument forbids that.
>all that is necessary is to define those to be eaten "not persons."
Like you do, every time you eat a meal?
>Same for slavery, genocide, etc., etc. as we have seen comparatively
>recently in human history.
You have a profound misunderstanding of what "control over one's own body"
Gregory Bernath
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 c...@iea.com wrote:
>>Ok, please let's have a poll. Only pro-choice should vote. How many people
>>would oppose a bill prohibiting late term elective abortions of healthy
>>fetuses?
>I asked this question about 6 months ago, but I asked it in the reverse.
>It will be interesting to see if you get any yeses this way, when I asked
>if they'd support such a bill, it was full of resounding nos.
Pro-lifers generally make it known that any abortion restrictions they
get through are stepping stones to further restrictions. It's rather
foolish for the pro-choice side to give any concessions to a group who's
stated goals accept nothing less than total surrender of the opposition.
I don't see the need for such a ban, since there's no evidence such late
term abortions of healthy fetuses happening. Such a ban would create more
problems than it solved, introducing red tape and delays to women who
might have an urgent medical need for such an abortion.
However ... I'm willing to compromise, provided something is given in
return to allow freer access to abortion in general, a greater good.
[disclaimer -- this is what I would do. I don't speak for the pro-choice
side in general.]
So, what compromises are you willing to make? Permanently, that is, you
can't add further restrictions tomorrow. Put your cards on the table,
and let's see who the extremists are. Is stopping late term abortions
your real goal, or are you just after a few points in the polls?
Remember, I've basically got what I want. I don't have to compromise.
You do. And since your political base is slowly but inexorably shrinking,
you'd best be quick about it.
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu