A woman's right to choose - a lawsuit
Joseph P. Belk
sue. In most jurisdictions, a statute of limitations shields the
abortionist from almost all malpractice lawsuits after a set term,
usually a few years. However, a critically important characteristic of
physical and mental damage from abortion is that the woman affected
may pass through several years or even decades of denial before she
comes to terms with the knowledge that her abortion is the source of
her suffering.
In light of the potentially long latency period on many forms of
abortion damage to the woman, just abortion law will eliminate
statutes of limitation for abortion. Ask your congressional
representatives to open abortionists to medical malpractice lawsuits
whenever and wherever the malpractice took place.
Joseph P. Belk
********************************************************************
Book excerpt: Linda described her abortion as follows:
"I was fully awake, no pills given, or shots. I lay
there with tears rolling down my face. The room was
cool. My tears felt like fire on my face, cutting it,
slice by slice, tear by tear. My hands were wet with
sweat; my right hand squeezed the counselor's thin,
cold hand as though squeezing the life out of her. My
left hand lay fisted, clenched tightly on my vibrating
stomach as the abortion occurred. It felt as though
someone was raping me with a 15-Amp canister vacuum
hose with no mercy as I lay there helpless, crying
calmly, as if agreeing to be raped."
_Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion_. Theresa Burke with
David C. Reardon. 2002. Springfield IL: Acorn Books.
Excerpt from page 114.
Purchase this book from
Acorn Books
P. O. Box 7348
Springfield, IL 62791-7348
********************************************************************
Ray Fischer
>When abortion is medical malpractice, a woman should have a right to
>sue.
They alreday do.
> In most jurisdictions, a statute of limitations shields the
>abortionist from almost all malpractice lawsuits after a set term,
Almost ALL civil and criminal laws have an associated statute of
limitations. It has nothing at all to do with abortion.
> However, a critically important characteristic of
>physical and mental damage from abortion is that
... it rarely exists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pat Winstanley
says...
> Subject: A woman's right to choose - a lawsuit
> From: Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.feminism, alt.feminazis
>
> When abortion is medical malpractice, a woman should have a right to
> sue.
>
She has.
Just as anyone has a right to sue if any medical procedure performed on
them is done in a way that is (allegedly) medical malpractice.
What's the problem?
Why do you continually call for laws to be put into place that are
*already* in place (and have been for a very long time)?
What era are you living in???? Prehistoric?
Unit335
question:
Assuming the story is true: If she felt this way, why was she getting an
abortion in the first place? It was her CHOICE. No one forced her into this.
Quite frankly, this little piece reeks of propaganda, lying, emotional
bullshit. Nor is this what actually takes place during an abortion
procedure.
Therefore, I would venture to say that Linda, if she even exists, is a liar.
-Donald in Austin
"Joseph P. Belk" <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:m4l6sugp07dajjbqq...@4ax.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> > However, a critically important characteristic of
> >physical and mental damage from abortion is that
>
> ... it rarely exists.
Do either of you have figures?
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6MUw9.263483$Fw2.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> You offer an exerpt from Linda's book with your post and it begs a serious
> question:
>
> Assuming the story is true: If she felt this way, why was she getting an
> abortion in the first place? It was her CHOICE. No one forced her into
this.
>
> Quite frankly, this little piece reeks of propaganda, lying, emotional
> bullshit. Nor is this what actually takes place during an abortion
> procedure.
>
> Therefore, I would venture to say that Linda, if she even exists, is a
liar.
>
> -Donald in Austin
Donald,
People often go against their own morals and beleifs in times of stress and
fear. Such a change in life is a perfect example of the fear that makes
people do such things. When something that seems like a quick resolve is
made so easily accessible in a time when the pressure is on, it is easy to
take the easy way out and resolve to deal with the repercussions later..
Especially if those repercussions are "merely" handling your own emotions.
Most people think that is easy to do.
Just think of the person quitting smoking... a month later they have these
horrible cravings and deduce that if they have one cigarette now they can
deal with having only one. They can fight the increased cravings after
"Just One" cigarette right? Well, anyone who has been there (Including
myself) knows the truth. Yet even those people when faced with that
turmoil, end up taking just one cigarette and then suffer the consequences.
Even though they knew the reality, they still took the easy way out.
Steve
Ray Fischer
========================================================================
THE MYTH OF POST-ABORTION TRAUMA
by Henry P David PhD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Induced abortion is one of the oldest forms of fertility regulation.
Perhaps no other elective procedure has evoked as much public debate,
generated such emotional and moral controversy or received greater
sustained attention from the media. As has long been recognised, there
is no psychologically painless way of coping with an unwanted pregnancy.
While an abortion may elicit feelings of regret, guilt or loss, an
alternative solution, such as a forced marriage, giving a baby up for
adoption or adding an unwanted child to an already strained partner
relationship, is also likely to be accompanied by psychological problems
for the woman, the child and society.
Of all the complications of abortion, psychological responses are the
most difficult to assess and evaluatepfar more so than mortality and
morbidity statistics. Assuming that psychiatric or psychological
morbidity is a real and measurable phenomenon, the explanation for the
wide range of opinions expressed in the literature may well lie in the
inadequacy of much of the published work. Included in the scientific
deficiencies are an overemphasis on clinical case histories that ignore
the large majority of women who terminate unwanted pregnancies and never
seek post-operative mental health consultation; the absence of
standardised follow-up procedures; failure to reach consensus on
diagnostic psychological criteria; or disagreement on psychological
variables related to the sociocultural context within which the abortion
decision occurs. Differing political, moral, ethical and religious
perspectives impinge on how abortion is perceived by diverse observers.
Post-abortion trauma was initially described by Rue1 as a variant of
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Subsequently it has been asserted
that in 1987 the American Psychiatric Association acknowledged in its
newly revised manual of diagnostic criteria, the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III-R (DSM-III-R) that abortion
is a type of 'psychosocial stressor.' However, the American Psychiatric
Association never published a statement suggesting this. Neither the
1987 nor the 1994 revision of the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(DSM III-R and IV) mention abortion in relation to post-traumatic stress
disorder. Indeed, the only mention of abortion in DSM IV is spontaneous
abortion.
As defined by the APA, PTSD is a disabling condition 'following exposure
to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of
an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury'.
Likely stressors cited by APA as examples of PTSD include military
combat, violent personal assault, terrorist attack, and being held
hostage. It is quite a stretch to claim abortion as a stressor likely to
induce PTSD.
Usdin2, one of the major developers of the concept of post-traumatic
stress disorder noted that one of the criteria for PTSD is experiencing
'an event that is outside the range of usual human experience and that
would be markedly distressing to almost anyone.' Considering that more
than 30 million women in the USA and four million women in the UK have
experienced abortion since its legalisation it can hardly be said that
the abortion experience is outside the range of usual human experience.
There has been no reported increase in public or private mental health
services for women attributing their current psychological problems to
abortion.
The rationale for post-abortion syndrome (PAS) was developed by A C
Speckhard in 1985 in an unpublished thesis based on interviews with 30
women recruited for her doctoral dissertation in sociology at the
University of Minnesota. The women had been recruited because they
deemed their abortion experience to have been 'highly stressful'. The
time between the retrospective account and the most recent abortion
varied from one to 25 years. Both legal and clandestine abortions were
included. 46 per cent of the sample had second trimester abortions and
four per cent experienced third trimester terminations, both known to be
more psychologically stressful than first trimester procedures. Whereas
over 90 per cent of all women having abortions in 1990 had them in the
first trimester, only 50 per cent of Speckhard's sample reported first
trimester abortions. More than nine out of 10 (92 per cent) of the women
recalled feelings of anger, hostility or rage toward individuals
(including partner, medical professionals and significant others) who
were perceived as having been coercive in the abortion decision-making
process. Moreover, 96 per cent of the subjects 'regarded abortion as the
taking of a life or as murder,' an observation very likely to heighten
feelings of guilt and perceptions of stress. Speckhard later cautioned
readers that 'the generalisability of the results is severely limited by
the size of the sample and the sampling methodology,' adding that 'the
results presented do not necessarily apply to all women who have
abortions, or even to that proportion of women who are highly stressed
following abortion.' It was indeed an atypical sample.
Recognising the political, ethical and moral issues intertwined with
abortion and in response to questions raised in the United States
Congress about the medical and mental health effects of abortion, the
American Psychological Association, in 1989, convened an expert panel to
examine psychological factors. The panel's mission was not to assess
values but to consider the best available evidence on psychological
responses to abortion. It focused on studies with the most rigorous
research designs, reporting findings on the psychological status of
women who had legal abortions under non-restrictive circumstances, that
is, on request in the first trimester and not solely on grounds of
physical or mental health.
The panel found that psychological distress is generally greatest before
the abortion when the woman has to decide how to resolve an unwanted
pregnancy. Responses after abortion reflect the range of psychological
experience and the resources a woman has for coping with negative life
events. While there may be temporary sensations of regret, sadness or
guilt the weight of the evidence indicates that legal abortion of an
unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a severe
psychological hazard for the vast majority of women. Indeed, most women
report experiencing a feeling of reliefpof anxiety lifted.
A longer term study3 found that the wellbeing of 773 women, interviewed
annually in a national sample of 5,295 women, was unrelated to their
abortion experience eight years earlier. Women who had had an abortion
had a statistically significant higher global self-esteem rating than
women who had never had an abortion. This difference was even greater
when comparing aborting women with those delivering unwanted pregnancies
(who had the lowest self-esteem). Women who had experienced repeat
abortions did not differ in self-esteem from women who had never had an
abortion. In all, the evidence confirmed earlier findings that factors
other than the abortion experience itself determine post abortion
emotional status, particularly how a woman perceives her pregnancy and
how she believes it to be perceived in her immediate social environment.
Some women continually reconstruct and reinterpret past events in the
light of subsequent experience and can be pressured into feeling guilt
and shame long afterwards.
Denmark offers unique opportunities for research in reproductive health
because it has a uniform national population registration system that
provides access to national abortion, birth and admission to psychiatric
hospital registers. Linkage among these registers makes it possible to
compare the risks of psychiatric hospital admission following abortion
and childbirth. However, because there may be a bias against
hospitalising a new mother, particularly if she is nursing, the relative
psychological risk of abortion compared with childbirth may be
exaggerated by using hospital admission as an operational indicator of
psychiatric illness.
Controlling for previous psychiatric history, first time psychiatric
hospital admissions were tracked three months post-abortion and
postpartum and for all other women experiencing no fertility event under
age 50 residing in Denmark. Data were obtained on 27,234 women
terminating pregnancy, 71,378 women carrying to term and the total
population of 1,169,819 women 15-49 years old.4
Among women who were married or living in a stable partner relationship,
the post-pregnancy risk of admission to a psychiatric hospital was about
the same for abortions or deliveries: approximately 1.3 per 1,000
abortions and 1.2 per 1,000 deliveries. While the difference between
rates for abortions and deliveries was not statistically significant,
the rate for the total population of women was considerably lower (0.7
per 1,000). Among a smaller group of separated, divorced or widowed
women, those who had terminated pregnancies showed a substantially
higher psychiatric admission rate (6.4 per 1,000) than did separated,
divorced or widowed women carrying to term (1.7 per 1,000). Women who
are divorced, separated or widowed may be relatively more likely to be
terminating pregnancies that were originally intended, placing them at
higher risk for negative post-abortion psychological reactions. However,
in the aggregate, there appeared to be little risk to psychological
wellbeing after
either abortion or delivery in Denmark.
In a longer term (up to 11 years) prospective cohort study5 of 13,261
women, organised jointly by the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists and of General Practitioners in the United Kingdom, there
were four comparison groups: 6,151 women who did not request abortion,
6,410 who obtained an abortion, 379 whose request for abortion was
denied, and 371 who requested an abortion and then changed their minds.
Among the study's key findings were that (a) among women with equivalent
past psychiatric histories there were no significant differences between
the comparison groups in overall rates of psychiatric illness; (b) women
with a previous history of psychosis were more likely to experience a
psychotic episode during the period of the study than those who had no
such history and that termination of pregnancy did not appear to
increase the risk; (c) women with a past history of non-psychotic
disorder or no history of psychiatric disorder who had a termination
were significantly less likely to have a psychotic episode than those
who did not request a termination; and (d) in women with no previous
history of psychosis the risk of psychosis after termination appeared to
be lower than after childbirth.
The authors note that many women were lost to follow-up during the study
and that at the end just 2,122 (34.4 per cent) of the termination group
and 3,000 (42.4 per cent) of those who did not request a termination
were still under observation but that comparisons between the groups
were still valid.
Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent. Psychoses
are very uncommon, being reported in only 0.3 to 1.2 per 1,000 legal
abortions. Individual case studies and anecdotal reports of severe
stress or psychopathology following abortion abound in some of the
literature but there is no clear evidence of causal linkage to abortion.
While such responses can be emotionally overwhelming for the woman
concerned and for her family, the number of such cases is very small,
and has been characterised by former US Surgeon General C Everett Koop
as 'minuscule from a public health perspective'. Women identified in the
research literature as being at some risk for negative psychological
reactionspand in potential need of special counsellingpare those who
terminate a very much wanted pregnancy for medical reasons; lack support
from partners or parents for their decision; were coerced into making a
decision they subsequently regretted; are conflicted about deeply held
religious values; are uncertain of their coping abilities beforehand;
blame themselves for the pregnancy; delay into the second trimester or
had a previous psychiatric episode.
For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a
mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This
holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward. Little is
known about very long term effects beyond 10 years. However, the
positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes it
unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later. Severe negative
reactions are rare. The time of greatest stress is likely to be before
the abortion decision is made. In all, evidence from the research
literature suggests that, in the aggregate, legal abortion of an
unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological
hazard for most women. They tend to cope successfully and go on with
their lives. There is, as yet, no credible evidence for the existence of
post-abortion syndrome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Rue VM. Abortion and family relations, Testimony presented before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, US Senate Judiciary Committee, US
Senate, 97th Congress, Washington DC 1981.
2Usdin G. Psychiatry, letters, February 1990.
3Russo NF, Zierk KL. Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being,
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1992, 23: 269-280.
4David HP. Post-abortion and postpartum psychiatric hospitalisation in R
Porter and M O'Connor (eds) Abortion: Medical progress and social
implications Ciba Symposium No 45 London, Pitman 1985,150-161.
5Gilchrist AC, Hannaford PC, Frank P, Kay CR. Termination of pregnancy
and psychiatric morbidity, British Journal of Psychiatry 1995, 167:
243-248.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared for presentation at the international conference on abortion,
Abortion Matters, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27-29 March 1996. An
expanded, fully referenced version of this paper is available from Birth
Control Trust.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Unit335
Out of context response. She had the CHOICE.
Quite frankly, the exerpt sounds like a complete fabrication.
Where I come from, we call that bullshit.
-Donald in Austin
"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote in message news:yCVw9.14183$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:aq1956$bs4$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\) <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote:
>
> >> > However, a critically important characteristic of
> >> >physical and mental damage from abortion is that
> >>
> >> ... it rarely exists.
> >
> >Do either of you have figures?
>
> ========================================================================
>
> THE MYTH OF POST-ABORTION TRAUMA
> by Henry P David PhD
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The rationale for post-abortion syndrome (PAS) was developed by A C
> Speckhard in 1985 in an unpublished thesis based on interviews with 30
> women recruited for her doctoral dissertation in sociology at the
> University of Minnesota. The women had been recruited because they
> deemed their abortion experience to have been 'highly stressful'. The
> time between the retrospective account and the most recent abortion
> varied from one to 25 years. Both legal and clandestine abortions were
> included. 46 per cent of the sample had second trimester abortions and
> four per cent experienced third trimester terminations, both known to be
> more psychologically stressful than first trimester procedures. Whereas
> over 90 per cent of all women having abortions in 1990 had them in the
> first trimester, only 50 per cent of Speckhard's sample reported first
> trimester abortions. More than nine out of 10 (92 per cent) of the women
> recalled feelings of anger, hostility or rage toward individuals
> (including partner, medical professionals and significant others) who
> were perceived as having been coercive in the abortion decision-making
> process. Moreover, 96 per cent of the subjects 'regarded abortion as the
> taking of a life or as murder,' an observation very likely to heighten
> feelings of guilt and perceptions of stress. Speckhard later cautioned
> readers that 'the generalisability of the results is severely limited by
> the size of the sample and the sampling methodology,' adding that 'the
> results presented do not necessarily apply to all women who have
> abortions, or even to that proportion of women who are highly stressed
> following abortion.' It was indeed an atypical sample.
I have to get to work right now, but I really have to comment on this. What
is "a smaller group"? Was the first group mentioned a segment of the whole
or the whole itself? Was the smaller group a segment of the first or
separate from it? Do you understand what I am saying here? Obviously there
was some sort of division that is not explained. That doesn't mean that it
was for devious purposes, it just means that the information isn't complete.
Regardless of the rest of the information, all these figures point that
post-abortion Psychological disorders are higher in one group of people who
terminated the child for a particular reason than some other group of people
who we know nothing about other than that they were once pregnant.
If anything, it also proves that people who have a peachy care-free life
spend less time grieving over their errors. Interesting.
As for the earlier figures, I fail to see the significance that proves that
women do not feel guilt about terminating their child. If anything, the
numbers, regardless of how far along each would-be mother was, were
staggering! 50% of the women who felt their abortion was stressful fell
into the first trimester, where most abortions take place. What is worse is
that 94% or more of those first trimester abortion users (do the math) who
felt stress over it had felt like they murdered their own child?
Not everyone who undergoes feelings of guilt or stress ends up in the looney
bin. I have a friend who had an abortion, and she felt horrible stress
about it. It still bothers her to think about it, but she still does
sometimes. She kept another child and is so very happy to have that child in
her life. Fortunately, we, as humans have an uncanny ability to heal
regardless of the pain and guilt from our mistakes. Dr. David's figures
showed nothing to prove his own point. Instead they show that in many cases
a significant increase in stress and hospitalization was needed (3 times
more), particularly in situations when mothers discarded their baby because
of more selfish reasons. This doctor gives an ok debate in words and
theory, but when you analyze his ACTUAL FIGURES for what they are, it really
does shine a negative light on abortion and the mental consequences.
It is also noteworthy that any places where Dr. David SAYS that the research
points to better physiological health in women who terminated their babies,
he gave no figures. How, for instance, was "Self Esteem" measured? Could
Self Esteem be compared fairly between a middle aged Christian who believes
strongly that being humble is a virtue and a feminist who believes women are
strong and powerful forces and can make their own decision regardless of
whether it mocks God, rips out the heart would-be father, or destroys a
life? How do you measure this?
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
You see, these are used to explain a point of view. They don't necessarily
prove a point, they merely make it more understandable. I personally have
been through the smoking battle, and I can assure you, it's not bull.
Steve
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5nWw9.264100$Fw2.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Unit335
When a person writes a story and purports it to be the truth, when it is
not, it is a lie. Either that or call it for what it is: fiction.
This person, Linda, is writing as though she experienced this event. It is
not written like a story relaying historical events from a first person
view, such as the sinking of the Titanic or witnessing the Civil War. She is
"claiming" to have actually experienced a very intimate procedure. She is
failing miserably.
It is the same as me trying to explain what it is like to have a broken leg,
when I've never had one. It would be like you explaining to me what it is
like to go into a burning building, when you've never done it. She is
leading the reader to believe that she actually experienced this when, based
on your words, she had not done it.
Sugarcoat and play semantics all you'd like, but a lie is a lie.
-Donald in Austin
"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote in message news:WZZw9.14708$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
>
> When a person writes a story and purports it to be the truth, when it is
> not, it is a lie. Either that or call it for what it is: fiction.
>
> This person, Linda, is writing as though she experienced this event. It is
> not written like a story relaying historical events from a first person
> view, such as the sinking of the Titanic or witnessing the Civil War. She
is
> "claiming" to have actually experienced a very intimate procedure. She is
> failing miserably.
>
> It is the same as me trying to explain what it is like to have a broken
leg,
> when I've never had one. It would be like you explaining to me what it is
> like to go into a burning building, when you've never done it. She is
> leading the reader to believe that she actually experienced this when,
based
> on your words, she had not done it.
>
> Sugarcoat and play semantics all you'd like, but a lie is a lie.
>
> -Donald in Austin
know Linda lied.. just curious.. not arguing.
Steve
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> > However, a critically important characteristic of
>> >> >physical and mental damage from abortion is that
>> >>
>> >> ... it rarely exists.
>> >
>> >Do either of you have figures?
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> THE MYTH OF POST-ABORTION TRAUMA
>> by Henry P David PhD
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>~~~~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> The rationale for post-abortion syndrome (PAS) was developed by A C
>> Speckhard in 1985 in an unpublished thesis
"Unpublished thesis" means it was not good enough to be published.
Bad methodology is the usual reason.
>> based on interviews with 30
>> women recruited for her doctoral dissertation in sociology at the
>> University of Minnesota.
30 carefully-selected women isn't enough to prove anything.
>> The women had been recruited because they
>> deemed their abortion experience to have been 'highly stressful'.
In short, Speckhard picked a few women who claimed that abortion was
stressful and concluded that (surprise!) abortion was stressful.
>> The
>> time between the retrospective account and the most recent abortion
>> varied from one to 25 years. Both legal and clandestine abortions were
>> included. 46 per cent of the sample had second trimester abortions and
>> four per cent experienced third trimester terminations,
In the US some 90% of all abortion are done in the 1st trimester,
another 9% in the 2nd trimester, and less than 1% in the 3rd.
So clearly the "study" was biased and non-representative from the
start. No wonder it wasn't published. It was crap from the very
start.
>> both known to be
>> more psychologically stressful than first trimester procedures. Whereas
>> over 90 per cent of all women having abortions in 1990 had them in the
>> first trimester, only 50 per cent of Speckhard's sample reported first
>> trimester abortions. More than nine out of 10 (92 per cent) of the women
>> recalled feelings of anger, hostility or rage toward individuals
>> (including partner, medical professionals and significant others) who
>> were perceived as having been coercive in the abortion decision-making
>> process.
How about that. COERCION causes upset. What a surprise!
I guess then that you won't want to be using COERCION to
get women to give birth, eh?
Women who get abortions tend to have less happy circumstances from
the start. It is not abortion which causes the problems, but it is
the circumstances which lead to abortion. Forced childbirth would
only make things far worse.
>As for the earlier figures, I fail to see the significance that proves that
>women do not feel guilt about terminating their child. If anything, the
>numbers, regardless of how far along each would-be mother was, were
>staggering! 50% of the women who felt their abortion was stressful fell
>into the first trimester, where most abortions take place.
Are you referring to Speckhard's thesis? It's crap.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
>
>When a person writes a story and purports it to be the truth, when it is
>not, it is a lie. Either that or call it for what it is: fiction.
Abortion opponents are a little unclear on such concepts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
No, I am referring to the figures he used, not his thesis. Doctor David may
have explained those figures and provided his own thesis, but he didn't deny
those figures. If you read what I said again, you will see that I did not
theorize on the figures, I merely pointed out what they meant. It was
obviously less than what both doctors theorized, but more acurate. I am not
a Phd, so I don't have the same legal licence these two doctors (David and
Speckhard) do to call my theories fact just because I have letters in my
name.
-steve
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> Unit335 <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
> >
> >When a person writes a story and purports it to be the truth, when it is
> >not, it is a lie. Either that or call it for what it is: fiction.
>
> Abortion opponents are a little unclear on such concepts.
>
response to that message. I am curious... with all the issues you believe
in, is abortion the only one people have to agree with you on in order to
pass your intelligence test?
-steve
Pat Winstanley
says...
> 46 per cent of the sample had second trimester abortions and
> >> four per cent experienced third trimester terminations,
>
> In the US some 90% of all abortion are done in the 1st trimester,
> another 9% in the 2nd trimester, and less than 1% in the 3rd.
>
> So clearly the "study" was biased and non-representative from the
> start. No wonder it wasn't published. It was crap from the very
> start.
>
>
Indeed... for a start it looks like half the sample *wanted* their
pregnancies and *wanted* them to continue... but for some reason they
found that the *wanted* pregnancies simply weren't viable (there would
be no baby at the end, or no 'them' at the end) even if they continued
to term.
Ray Fischer
It is crap. By hand-picking 30 people you can prove anything you
want. You can prove that most of the people in the world believe that
the world is flat.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net