Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Doctors Feed Aborted Girls to Dogs to Hide Sex-Selection Abortions
1 view
Skip to first unread message
J
May 24, 2012, 1:30:17 AM5/24/12
to
The arguments put forth by those who favor liberal abortion laws may
sound both reasonable and compassionate. Reality is a different story.
As witnessed from the following news article, abortion has not helped to
improve the live of females; especially pre-born girls. Being dead is
bad enough, but dog food? For shame.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/23/doctors-feed-aborted-girls-to-dogs-to-hide-sex-selection-abortions/
In a news story that sounds like it is more out of a bad science fiction
movie than reality, a newspaper in India reports doctors in one city are
so desperate to hide evidence that they are doing sex-selection
abortions that they are feeding the remains of aborted girl babies to dogs.
Sme physicians in the city of Beed, India are engaging in the practice,
according to India Today, which spoke with Varsha Deshpande of Lek Ladki
Abhiyan, an NGO working against the practice. Maharashtra’s Public
Health Minister Suresh Shetty also admitted to the newspaper that he had
heard of reports of the practice taking place.
“A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals. This is known to
everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as Munde is
influential,” Deshpande said.
She added that some other doctors in Beed kept dogs for the same purpose
– to avoid the hassle of disposing of the bodies.
Health Minister Shetty said: “I have heard of the practice but have no
evidence.”
He added that since the local police seemed to be under a lot of
“pressure”, he had decided to ask the crime branch to investigate the
latest case.
The newspaper indicates Beed has one of the worst male-female gender
ratios in India — 801 girls being born per 1,000 boys, according to the
2011 census — and the numbers are attributed to female infanticide and
sex-selection abortions.
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 1:49:57 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 6:30 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The arguments put forth by those who favor liberal abortion laws may
> sound both reasonable and compassionate. Reality is a different story.
> As witnessed from the following news article, abortion has not helped to
> improve the live of females; especially pre-born girls. Being dead is
> bad enough, but dog food? For shame.
>
> http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/23/doctors-feed-aborted-girls-to-dogs...
> The arguments put forth by those who favor liberal abortion laws may
> sound both reasonable and compassionate. Reality is a different story.
> As witnessed from the following news article, abortion has not helped to
> improve the live of females; especially pre-born girls. Being dead is
> bad enough, but dog food? For shame.
>
It's interesting that this article reports on a story for which there
is little, if any, evidence for what is obviously an unpleasant
practice.
It also reports on arrests for the deaths of women who died during
abortions as if the doctors in question had been found guilty of
murder already, and without reporting on court cases and there
outcomes.
I often wonder why people automatically assume a person arrested for a
crime must be guilty, an anyone shed any light on that?
default
May 24, 2012, 10:23:29 AM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:30:17 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>“A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals. This is known to
>everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as Munde is
>influential,” Deshpande said.
One has to consider the source.
>
>“A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals. This is known to
>everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as Munde is
>influential,” Deshpande said.
It wasn't too long ago that China and India practiced infanticide as a
means of gender selection. Would the religion prefer infanticide, on
the grounds that abortion is murder?
The police aren't taking action? Where is the crime?
Maybe the fear is that once dogs develop a taste for humans, they will
become abortionists? Sounds like something evangelicals might
believe.
elizabeth
May 24, 2012, 1:33:44 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 7:23 am, default wrote:
Gee, don't they know there is a huge market for girls in the sex
trade? All ya gotta do is feed'em for a few years and sell 'em like
veal calves!
trade? All ya gotta do is feed'em for a few years and sell 'em like
veal calves!
Dino
May 24, 2012, 1:57:55 PM5/24/12
to
Oh, never mind. We both know why.
elizabeth
May 24, 2012, 5:17:01 PM5/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just kill yourself, Heishman. If you were the least bit sane you'd
realize how you have beshit yourself in public.
MarkA
May 24, 2012, 7:24:06 PM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:30:17 -0700, J wrote:
>
>
> In a news story that sounds like it is more out of a bad science fiction
> movie than reality, a newspaper in India reports doctors in one city are
> so desperate to hide evidence that they are doing sex-selection abortions
> that they are feeding the remains of aborted girl babies to dogs.
>
In the Middle Ages, before the discovery of anesthesia and antisepsis,
>
>
> In a news story that sounds like it is more out of a bad science fiction
> movie than reality, a newspaper in India reports doctors in one city are
> so desperate to hide evidence that they are doing sex-selection abortions
> that they are feeding the remains of aborted girl babies to dogs.
>
surgery was performed by "barber surgeons", and was the treatment of last
resort. One common problem for which surgery is the only treatment choice
(beyond ignoring the problem), is inguinal hernia. If you have loops of
intestines going into your scrotum every time you cough, or try to lift
something heavy, it is not only painful, but potentially fatal.
Inguinal hernias occur because the testis develop inside the abdomen, but
later move outside the abdomen to their permanent home in the scrotum.
The site where they penetrate the abdominal wall is the weak spot where
hernias form.
The "fast and easy" way to fix a hernia would be to remove the testicle,
and sew the hole shut. Most men would rather not lose a testicle if they
can avoid it, so a traveling surgeon who promised that he can fix a
hernia, quickly and with minimal pain, without removing the testicle,
would have lots of patients waiting for him in any town he went to.
Of course, the surgeon couldn't really repair the hernia with sacrificing
the testicle. So, he would have a dog with him when he did the surgery.
Since there was no anesthesia, surgery involved having a few big guys
holding the patient down, while the surgeon did the procedure as fast as
possible. After cutting off the testicle, the surgeon would throw it to
the dog, who gobbled it down before the patient noticed. By the time
swelling went down, a few days after surgery, and the patient realized
that his testicle was gone, the surgeon was also long gone.
So, dogs and surgeons have long had a close working relationship. Using
them to dispose of fetal tissue is a natural extension of this
relationship.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
SkyEyes
May 24, 2012, 11:54:06 PM5/24/12
to
other than to fertilize plant matter.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Dino
May 25, 2012, 12:43:10 AM5/25/12
to
MarkA
May 25, 2012, 8:09:51 AM5/25/12
to
Another nice one: the first surgery to open the abdomen was on a woman
with a large ovarian cyst. Surgery was done on her kitchen table. There
was a lynch mob outside, waiting to hang the surgeon if the woman died.
She survived.
The different background history of surgery versus the more civilized
background of medicine is why, to this day, surgeons in England are called
"Mister", not "Doctor".
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Dino
May 25, 2012, 10:32:01 AM5/25/12
to
>
> The different background history of surgery versus the more civilized
> background of medicine is why, to this day, surgeons in England are called
> "Mister", not "Doctor".
they had people hold
down a patient during surgery, or they would use whiskey. I recall
reading that during the civil
war, many people were amputated and it was done usually with someone
having to hold him down.
MarkA
May 25, 2012, 4:35:07 PM5/25/12
to
earlier muskets, as used during the Revolutionary War, had smooth barrels,
and were not particularly accurate or powerful, except at very close
range. During the Civil War, the rifled barrel was put into use. A
rifled barrel puts spin on a bullet, which allows it to travel farther,
faster, and with more accuracy. Sadly, the field commanders were still
using the battlefield formations and tactics from the Revolutionary War:
large formations of men, shoulder to shoulder, just begging to be cut down
by accurate, long range rifle and cannon fire.
As there were no antibiotics at that time, and the wounds tended to be
heavily contaminated, massive infections were common, even with a
relatively minor wound. That is why amputations were necessary: if
amputation of a wounded limb was not performed soon after the injury,
gangrene would occur, which spreads very rapidly, and is invariably fatal.
The doctors of the Civil War era did have access to narcotics, such as
morphine, but there was nothing like general anesthesia, or even local
anesthesia, and supplies of morphine were often limited. So, as you said,
it was usually a matter of getting the patient as relaxed as possible with
alcohol and morphine, having a couple of big guys holding him down,
giving him something to bite on, and getting the amputation done as
quickly as possible.
Dino
May 25, 2012, 9:59:11 PM5/25/12
to
period of time.
Considering, that while the civil war was not in our lifetime; it
wasn't that long ago.
linuxgal
May 25, 2012, 11:44:35 PM5/25/12
to
Dino wrote:
> Can you imagine living in those times? I do recall reading about how
> they had people hold
> down a patient during surgery, or they would use whiskey. I recall
> reading that during the civil
> war, many people were amputated and it was done usually with someone
> having to hold him down.
They had morphine, at least in the Blue Coat army. Apparently, in the
> Can you imagine living in those times? I do recall reading about how
> they had people hold
> down a patient during surgery, or they would use whiskey. I recall
> reading that during the civil
> war, many people were amputated and it was done usually with someone
> having to hold him down.
attack on Atlanta depicted in Gone with the Wind, Johnny Reb ran out.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 26, 2012, 11:33:05 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:35:07 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
An interesting study of Civil War combat is the evolution of tactics
and battlefield formations over the course of the war.
What you wrote is accurate for the early war period. Officers from
West Point and VMI were trained in Napoleonic doctrine, and formations
were used as you describe above.
While it seems rather insane to us who've learned of modern
battlefield tactics, there was a certain logic to what they were
doing. One of the most problematic aspects of battle in that period
was command and control during the din of battle, and keeping soldiers
in tightly packed formations made controlling them easier. Loss of
control on the battlefield is one of the worst things that can happen
to an army and can rapidly lead to disaster, so it was deemed worth
trading a certain level of causalities in order to maintain firm
control over the troops.
Commanders clung to such formations in part because they didn't really
know anything else in the early war period, and, as you mentioned
above, hadn't come to grips with the increased lethality of Civil War
era weaponry.
However, the increased lethality of the weapons of the time wasn't
lost on the average soldier and by the time of the battle of Antietam,
troops were taking matters into their own hands as much as possible,
and one begins to see units building breast works and utilizing cover
for protection when ever they had the opportunity.
This was even more pronounced by the battle of Gettysburg, and by the
time of the siege of Richmond, one is seeing full on trench warfare,
with soldiers on both sides digging in to maximize their protection.
So, the meme that Civil War commanders and soldiers were stuck in the
past and unable or unwilling to adapt to the new battlefield reality
is somewhat inaccurate. It took time, and was partially driven from
the bottom up rather than the top down, but they did modify their
tactics to meet the reality of the battlefield conditions.
>As there were no antibiotics at that time, and the wounds tended to be
>heavily contaminated, massive infections were common, even with a
>relatively minor wound. That is why amputations were necessary: if
>amputation of a wounded limb was not performed soon after the injury,
>gangrene would occur, which spreads very rapidly, and is invariably fatal.
What you wrote is a bit incomplete.
You're correct that infection was a major problem, but the real reason
for the high number of amputations wasn't to prevent infection, it was
because the large caliber bullets of civil war ammunition (.69 caliber
- almost 3/4 of an inch!) tended to shatter bone so completely that
healing was impossible, leaving amputation the only option. If the
bullet struck bone, the necessity of amputation was almost a
certainty.
For many civil war wounds, amputation would still be the only option
today.
>The doctors of the Civil War era did have access to narcotics, such as
>morphine, but there was nothing like general anesthesia, or even local
>anesthesia, and supplies of morphine were often limited. So, as you said,
>it was usually a matter of getting the patient as relaxed as possible with
>alcohol and morphine, having a couple of big guys holding him down,
>giving him something to bite on, and getting the amputation done as
>quickly as possible.
This is somewhat inaccurate.
Both ether and chloroform were known by the time of the Civil War,
their military use having been pioneered during the Crimean War by
British and French surgeons. It didn't take long for Civil War
surgeons to realize the efficacy of general anesthetic and knowledge
of their desirability spread through both armies rather quickly.
For Union armies, the actual use of general anesthetics spread rapidly
as the north had the both the industrial base to produce them and the
shipping capacity to import them when needed. So, sufficient supplies
of chloroform (preferred over ether for some reason I'm unaware of) to
meet the military's needs were generally available to Union surgeons
by the mid-war period.
The horror stories one reads about holding down a patient while sawing
off their limbs mostly come from Confederate accounts. The South had
limited capacity to produce such chemicals internally and were unable
to import them in the necessary quantities due to the blockade. There
was some supply on hand at the start of the war from civilian
stockpiles, but the demands of the military rapidly exhausted these. A
Confederate soldier was very lucky indeed if the surgeon who hacked
off his leg happened to have some chloroform on hand.
The South had similar difficulty in obtaining opiates, so for a
Confederate soldier, pain relief was very rudimentary or non-existent.
I've never come across anything about local anesthetics in the Civil
War period, but I would be surprised if at least cocaine wasn't known
and in use to some extent.
wrote:
and battlefield formations over the course of the war.
What you wrote is accurate for the early war period. Officers from
West Point and VMI were trained in Napoleonic doctrine, and formations
were used as you describe above.
While it seems rather insane to us who've learned of modern
battlefield tactics, there was a certain logic to what they were
doing. One of the most problematic aspects of battle in that period
was command and control during the din of battle, and keeping soldiers
in tightly packed formations made controlling them easier. Loss of
control on the battlefield is one of the worst things that can happen
to an army and can rapidly lead to disaster, so it was deemed worth
trading a certain level of causalities in order to maintain firm
control over the troops.
Commanders clung to such formations in part because they didn't really
know anything else in the early war period, and, as you mentioned
above, hadn't come to grips with the increased lethality of Civil War
era weaponry.
However, the increased lethality of the weapons of the time wasn't
lost on the average soldier and by the time of the battle of Antietam,
troops were taking matters into their own hands as much as possible,
and one begins to see units building breast works and utilizing cover
for protection when ever they had the opportunity.
This was even more pronounced by the battle of Gettysburg, and by the
time of the siege of Richmond, one is seeing full on trench warfare,
with soldiers on both sides digging in to maximize their protection.
So, the meme that Civil War commanders and soldiers were stuck in the
past and unable or unwilling to adapt to the new battlefield reality
is somewhat inaccurate. It took time, and was partially driven from
the bottom up rather than the top down, but they did modify their
tactics to meet the reality of the battlefield conditions.
>As there were no antibiotics at that time, and the wounds tended to be
>heavily contaminated, massive infections were common, even with a
>relatively minor wound. That is why amputations were necessary: if
>amputation of a wounded limb was not performed soon after the injury,
>gangrene would occur, which spreads very rapidly, and is invariably fatal.
You're correct that infection was a major problem, but the real reason
for the high number of amputations wasn't to prevent infection, it was
because the large caliber bullets of civil war ammunition (.69 caliber
- almost 3/4 of an inch!) tended to shatter bone so completely that
healing was impossible, leaving amputation the only option. If the
bullet struck bone, the necessity of amputation was almost a
certainty.
For many civil war wounds, amputation would still be the only option
today.
>The doctors of the Civil War era did have access to narcotics, such as
>morphine, but there was nothing like general anesthesia, or even local
>anesthesia, and supplies of morphine were often limited. So, as you said,
>it was usually a matter of getting the patient as relaxed as possible with
>alcohol and morphine, having a couple of big guys holding him down,
>giving him something to bite on, and getting the amputation done as
>quickly as possible.
Both ether and chloroform were known by the time of the Civil War,
their military use having been pioneered during the Crimean War by
British and French surgeons. It didn't take long for Civil War
surgeons to realize the efficacy of general anesthetic and knowledge
of their desirability spread through both armies rather quickly.
For Union armies, the actual use of general anesthetics spread rapidly
as the north had the both the industrial base to produce them and the
shipping capacity to import them when needed. So, sufficient supplies
of chloroform (preferred over ether for some reason I'm unaware of) to
meet the military's needs were generally available to Union surgeons
by the mid-war period.
The horror stories one reads about holding down a patient while sawing
off their limbs mostly come from Confederate accounts. The South had
limited capacity to produce such chemicals internally and were unable
to import them in the necessary quantities due to the blockade. There
was some supply on hand at the start of the war from civilian
stockpiles, but the demands of the military rapidly exhausted these. A
Confederate soldier was very lucky indeed if the surgeon who hacked
off his leg happened to have some chloroform on hand.
The South had similar difficulty in obtaining opiates, so for a
Confederate soldier, pain relief was very rudimentary or non-existent.
I've never come across anything about local anesthetics in the Civil
War period, but I would be surprised if at least cocaine wasn't known
and in use to some extent.
MarkA
May 27, 2012, 9:26:21 AM5/27/12
to
>
> Commanders clung to such formations in part because they didn't really
> know anything else in the early war period, and, as you mentioned above,
> hadn't come to grips with the increased lethality of Civil War era
> weaponry.
>
> However, the increased lethality of the weapons of the time wasn't lost on
> the average soldier and by the time of the battle of Antietam, troops were
> taking matters into their own hands as much as possible, and one begins to
> see units building breast works and utilizing cover for protection when
> ever they had the opportunity.
>
> This was even more pronounced by the battle of Gettysburg, and by the time
> of the siege of Richmond, one is seeing full on trench warfare, with
> soldiers on both sides digging in to maximize their protection.
>
> So, the meme that Civil War commanders and soldiers were stuck in the past
> and unable or unwilling to adapt to the new battlefield reality is
> somewhat inaccurate. It took time, and was partially driven from the
> bottom up rather than the top down, but they did modify their tactics to
> meet the reality of the battlefield conditions.
came from the soldiers as much as the generals.
>
>>As there were no antibiotics at that time, and the wounds tended to be
>>heavily contaminated, massive infections were common, even with a
>>relatively minor wound. That is why amputations were necessary: if
>>amputation of a wounded limb was not performed soon after the injury,
>>gangrene would occur, which spreads very rapidly, and is invariably
>>fatal.
>
> What you wrote is a bit incomplete.
>
> You're correct that infection was a major problem, but the real reason
> for the high number of amputations wasn't to prevent infection, it was
> because the large caliber bullets of civil war ammunition (.69 caliber -
> almost 3/4 of an inch!) tended to shatter bone so completely that
> healing was impossible, leaving amputation the only option. If the
> bullet struck bone, the necessity of amputation was almost a certainty.
>
> For many civil war wounds, amputation would still be the only option
> today.
>
the first signs of it appear, it is already too late to do anything about
it. Some people nowadays may have heard of "flesh eating bacteria"
infections, which can spread rapidly and cause death. Gas gangrene
spreads faster and kills quicker.
Another interesting bit of surgery lore regarding amputations: in the days
before antibiotics or antisepsis, wound infection rates after surgery were
virtually 100%. An amputation stump can get infected in one of two ways:
either an infection that spreads through the body, causing high fever,
drop in blood pressure (septic shock), and eventually, death. Or, a more
localized infection, that would, after several days, open and drain pus
from the wound.
The discharge of pus from the wound was greeted by the surgeons with great
relief, as it meant that the infection was limited, the stump would heal,
and the patient would live. They even had a name for it: "laudable pus".
When the laudable pus was seen, the worst was over.
>>The doctors of the Civil War era did have access to narcotics, such as
>>morphine, but there was nothing like general anesthesia, or even local
>>anesthesia, and supplies of morphine were often limited. So, as you
>>said, it was usually a matter of getting the patient as relaxed as
>>possible with alcohol and morphine, having a couple of big guys holding
>>him down, giving him something to bite on, and getting the amputation
>>done as quickly as possible.
>
> This is somewhat inaccurate.
>
> Both ether and chloroform were known by the time of the Civil War, their
> military use having been pioneered during the Crimean War by British and
> French surgeons. It didn't take long for Civil War surgeons to realize
> the efficacy of general anesthetic and knowledge of their desirability
> spread through both armies rather quickly.
>
> For Union armies, the actual use of general anesthetics spread rapidly
> as the north had the both the industrial base to produce them and the
> shipping capacity to import them when needed. So, sufficient supplies
> of chloroform (preferred over ether for some reason I'm unaware of) to
> meet the military's needs were generally available to Union surgeons by
> the mid-war period.
the airways, and postop vomiting. Chloroform was tried as an
alternative, but it tends to cause sudden death from cardiac arrhythmias.
>
> The horror stories one reads about holding down a patient while sawing
> off their limbs mostly come from Confederate accounts. The South had
> limited capacity to produce such chemicals internally and were unable to
> import them in the necessary quantities due to the blockade. There was
> some supply on hand at the start of the war from civilian stockpiles,
> but the demands of the military rapidly exhausted these. A Confederate
> soldier was very lucky indeed if the surgeon who hacked off his leg
> happened to have some chloroform on hand.
>
> The South had similar difficulty in obtaining opiates, so for a
> Confederate soldier, pain relief was very rudimentary or non-existent.
>
> I've never come across anything about local anesthetics in the Civil War
> period, but I would be surprised if at least cocaine wasn't known and in
> use to some extent.
MarkA
May 27, 2012, 9:41:30 AM5/27/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:59:11 -0700, Dino wrote:
>
> It's amazing how far medical science has advanced in such a short period
> of time.
> Considering, that while the civil war was not in our lifetime; it wasn't
> that long ago.
That is true for all of science. In the late 1800's, physicists thought
>
> It's amazing how far medical science has advanced in such a short period
> of time.
> Considering, that while the civil war was not in our lifetime; it wasn't
> that long ago.
that they had discovered all there was to know about physics, and all that
was left was to improve the precision with which measurements could be
made. That was before the discovery of both quantum mechanics and
relativity, which are, today, the most fundamental theories in physics.
The fact that each works very well in its own domain, yet the two are
completely incompatible with each other, suggests that there is an even
deeper layer of reality that we have yet to discover. QM and relativity
were each discovered only a little over 100 years ago.
More recently, the discovery of "dark matter" indicates that 90% of the
Universe is made out of something we know almost nothing about. So, once
we figure out the Grand Theory that unifies quantum mechanics and
relativity, and have sorted out dark matter and dark energy, will we THEN
have discovered most everything that there is to know about? Or, will we
still just be scratching the surface?
In medicine, the big challenge is still the understanding of how cells
control their growth. The discovery of antibiotics, antisepsis, and
anesthesia have made very sophisticated surgical procedures possible.
Many operations would become unnecessary if we could re-grow organs in
place, or selectively destroy diseased tissues without surgery.
Bacteria are easy to kill, because their biochemistry is much different
from ours. Other diseases, such as cancer, require an understanding of
what controls cell growth and behavior, and the development of techniques
to manipulate the cells individually.
0 new messages