dumbass anti-abortionists

The BBQ Pit
41

Should I put up a bloody masectomy photos to show the horrible reality of breast cancer operations? Does that prove anything? Does Katie Couric encourage colon cancer research by showing pictures of her late husband’s bloody stools? No.

Without context, a bloody fetus on a truck is tasteless and disgusting. One is far more likely to reduce abortions by offering services such as adoption counseling, food stamps, pre-natal care, birth control. But the easy way is to stick a bloody fetus on your truck and call it a day, I guess, so that’s what this loser has chosen to do.

42

beagledave: Then we agree that this guy driving the truck is an ass. And being an ass generally doesn’t help convince others of your point of view.

43

Yes. Yes.

44

I’ve seen folks displaying posters similar to the ones you describe, and I, too, find them distasteful, and could understand how they would disturb children. But political expression is one of the more protected forms of speech in this country for very good reasons. As disgusting as they are, I will defend the guy’s right to put those posters up on his truck.

Putting up those posters on his truck, in my opinion, is more of an indicator of the truck owner’s state of mind than whether or not abortion should remain a legal procedure. To go back to the PETA example, I’ve seen a car or two with posters showing dead animals, showing where meat and fur really come from. I doubt that person changed many minds, too, although I bet they started a lot of conversations on the subject.

So, I guess, to sum up: yes, the guy’s is an inconsiderate jerk, but he’s an inconsiderate jerk expressing his political opinions.

45

Um, Satan? I am guessing you haven’t heard the news, but James McMahon, the MD who pioneered this procedure, testified before his death that out of 2000 partial birth abortions he’d performed, at least 1/3 were in instances where there was absolutely no problem with the mother or the infant. Approximately 175 (9%) were for ‘maternal indications’ (most common: depression). Another 1183 cases (56%) were for fetal flaws, which included such life-threatening abnormalities as a cleft palate or Down’s syndrome.

I personally don’t see what the difference is between a vacuum or the dilation and extraction method. The kid is just as dead, no matter what you do.

46

Amulet, in 1996, over 90% of all abortions nationwide were performed prior to 13 weeks lmp. By the end of this period, the fetus is at most a few centimeters long, and the abortion is performed using a tube with an interior diameter of approximately 12-16 millimeters. That’s really small. The pictures displayed by the anti-abortion protesters I’ve encountered, however, look more like full-term fetuses that have been strafed with napalm. That is not the “reality” of abortion.

Satan, two great posts. The second one in particular - you’ve gotta give the RTL people credit for focusing on this issue, though. What is a rare medical procedure has become the most recent battleground for this debate, and because understanding the issues requires a level of knowledge that most people don’t care to obtain, it has been reduced to a sound-bit debate.

47

Amulet: Cite, please…

And if it’s from something like abortionismurder.com, please be aware that I will visibly roll my eyes when I look at the rest of the website…

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, four weeks, 21 hours, 4 minutes and 15 seconds.
8475 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,059.39.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 15 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

48

<Satan>
I see you don’t know shit about partial birth abortions except that they are icky, huh… <snip> But I guess it’s easier to just go, ew, they’re so yucky! I mean, have you ever seen an amputation of a limb? Gross! Ban that.

It seems you don’t know that much about partial birth abortions either…

In Dand C they cut up the fetus… In Partial birth they induce labor and bring the fetus down the birth canal in breech position until only the head remains inside (once the head is out if the baby is still alive then they have to try and save it)

Once the fetus is in said postion they poke a hole in the back of it’s head and suck out the brains. Once the fetus is dead they then complete the removal…

oh and Hi! everyone!

49

from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/26/briefs/

"Abortion Rights Supporter Says He Lied

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Feb. 26) – One of the key points at issue during last year’s debate about late-term abortions was just how often the procedure is performed. Now an abortion rights advocate has admitted he lied in a November 1995 “Nightline” interview when he said it was rarely performed. Ron Fitzsimmons, director of a coalition of abortion providers in Alexandria, Va., told The New York Times he lied because he feared the truth would hurt abortion rights supporters’ cause. Fitzsimmons said he “lied through my teeth” and it made him physically ill."

also see http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10john.htm

50

And, of course, while almost everyone in the country feels that an intact dialation and extraction should be the road of last resort, our government is playing political football with the issue. Clinton said he’ll sign a bill making it illegal except in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, the Republicans pass a bill that only exempts cases where the mother’s life is at risk, and instead of coming to a compromise, we wind up with an election year campaign issue! Suprise!

That way, the Democrats get to say how the Republicans are evil and want pregnant women to suffer irreparable harm, and the Republicans get to say how the Democrats are evil and want pre-born babies to die.

What a country.

51

My pleasure, Satan. I trust the AMA is sufficiently objective that you won’t need to visibly roll your eyes…?

52

Well, you certainly don’t, and you shouldn’t be so quick to attack when it’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Before addressing your post, let me ask you - do you know the incidence of late-term intact abortion? Do you know the reasons behind it? Although they vary, generally it is because the woman can’t be induced because of a contraindication to induction, which is very hard on the body, or because the fetus has a condition incompatible with life (hydrocephaly, for example), or because of a risk to the woman’s life or health. Once the decision to have an abortion has been made, the choice of method should be left to the woman and her physician.

No, D&C is an outmoded first-trimester technique, which has by and large been replaced with vacuum aspiration, a/k/a suction curettage. The proper term is D&E (dilatation and evacuation).

No, they don’t.

Not necessarily.

How would you suggest that they get the fetus’ skull out of the uterus? Remember, for an abortion the cervix is generally dilated only to 2 cm or thereabouts, versus 10 cm during the birth process.

The procedure is, after all, an abortion procedure. At some point and by some method, the fetus will wind up dead. The choice is, does the fetus get dead because it is being rent limb from limb (the D&E procedure, which even anti-abortion activists concede is an appropriate, well-established method of abortion), or by a quick stab? Frankly, given the choice, I’m going for the quick stab every time. Why should the government determine ahead of time that the method that a woman’s physician may believe to be the most appropriate for her circumstances may not be used because it’s “offensive” to them? And before you answer, consider that laws purporting to ban “partial birth abortion” have been passed in 31 states and in every case but two have been found to encompass every presently-practised method of abortion. If you don’t think the anti-abortionists are using this issue to do an end-run around Roe and Casey, think again.

I’m curious - you describe “D&C” abortions as where they “cut up the fetus”. Yet you seem to have no problem with that. Like I said, it seems a lot worse to me.

And btw, learn to use your apostrophes correctly.

53

I realize this thread has been hijacked and is turning into a debate, but at the risk of escalating:

Amulet this article was one of a series that JAMA did. Here are two cites to articles from the same volume of JAMA supporting the discretion of the physician to determine the appropriate medical procedure for her patient: The Continuing Need for Late Abortions and Late-term Abortion

In fact, ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, was the primary amicus for Dr. Carhart in the most recent Supreme Court case. The AMA consists of all kinds of doctors - ophthomologists, podiatrists, dermatologists, oncologists, proctologists. If you want them determining appropriate gynecological care for women in your life, great. Otherwise, the AMA’s position is less than convincing. Also, the AMA blundered in a big way in supporting the federal ban, although the CRLP cite was the only one I could find to the Booz Allen report.

54

Oops - I missed some of the context while I was posting.

However, just because Dr. McMahon was misleading is not a reason to decry the technique. In practice, Satan is right - this method is used more for emergencies or when another accepted method, such as induction, is contraindicated, than at the whim of a woman who, 23 weeks into her pregnancy, decides she doesn’t want the baby. (Although there are instance where a woman did not know she was pregnant until well into her second trimester - I think one of them is described in one of the JAMA articles I cited to earlier.)

If this method has advantages, I would hope it would be used more often. Currently, it has not been performed enough even to have morbidity and mortality rates to compare with other methods, as those rates are usually calculated based on 100,000 occurrences and there have been fewer than 10,000 reported intact D&E procedures.

55

Cantrip… I was pointing out the errors in Satan’s statements. He insisted that the primary and nearly exclusive use of this procedure was to save the life of the mother, or when the fetus was not viable. That, as we’ve seen, is patently untrue.

And even though three or four more inches would mean this infant is a living, breathing human fully protected under the Constitution of the United States, there really is no difference between this and other abortion procedures. As I said, the kid is just as dead no matter what you do.

56

Yup, you were. I was cross-posting furiously (rate, not state of mind) and I think I read some of the posts to imply things they didn’t - the thread went to two pages as I was composing my first missive, so I couldn’t review it easily. Apologies to you, and to anyone else who wasn’t saying what I thought you were saying.

57

Add up the amount of total abortions.

Then add up the total number of so-called “partial-birth abortions.”

Now, add up the amount of abortions which fit the latter group which were totally done out of the choice of the pregnant woman. No concerns for the mother. None for the fetus either.

Now, tell me what that percentage is.

That percentage is absoltely tiny. And statistically meaningless.

Now, why is it that the Pro-Lifers would get so attached to such a rare proceedure?

Because (he says, reverting back to the OP somewhat) it makes really gory signs, doesn’t it. You sure can show how yucky abortion is with this proceedure. They don’t have signs of bloody tampons, for example, which is all that is left of overwhelmingly most “choice” abortions.

And as I said: The proceedure is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be legal, because of how and in what cases it is primarilly to almost the point of exclusivity being done.

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 24 minutes and 34 seconds.
8480 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,060.08.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 40 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

58

Cantrip,

I concede… I did oversimplfy the procedure. However my main point of address was that in Partial Birth Abortions the fetus is not dismembered…

And by the by - I do not find D&C or D&E (which it is true is the most up to date procedure for abortions done in the relevant term) any less repulsive or damning than the Partial Births.

I am stringently Pro-Life (As if that wasn’t already fairly apparent)

and I apologise and grovel before the grammatical master that is yourself :roll eyes: for my misuse of ‘it’s’ you are correct I should have said ‘its’ in the name of all that is Good and Dear - how could I have performed such a heinous act!

And even tho I am primarily concerned with the lack of regard for human life that is the practice known as Abortion; my secondary concern is the blatent message that it carries.

In this society no one has to suffer the consequences of any of their actions no matter how irresponsible.

Hey, go driving with a cup of extremely hot coffee parked between your thighs and get burned… SUE THE PEOPLE who sold you your goddamned coffee!

If you irresponsibly get pregnant before you wanted to (not to suggest that this is all or even the majority of pregnancies terminated but it is a significant contributer)because you ‘don’t like condoms’ or ‘forgot to take your pill’ or whatevah… go get the kid vaccusucked right out. NO WORRIES.

It’s demeaning to a part of a society that allows it’s members to screw up as much as they want to and either blame someone else or else ‘erase’ the problem.

Oh and my sugesstion for how they remove the skull… they collapse it… at that stage the skull is quite soft.

Oh and regardless of how big it is at the time… A fetus holds more than the potential for human life (it is a human life) at six weeks after conception - it already even has little toes…

59

dang it… there isn’t a space…

:rolleyes:

there we go :confused: better…

60

HesterTM, you used a bad example. This is an oft-miscited case. It was discussed about three weeks ago here, and there are some good references here.

In short:[ul]
[li]The car wasn’t in motion.[/li][li]She wasn’t even in the driver’s seat.[/li][li]The restaurant in question had been previously notified their coffee was too hot. They changed nothing.[/li][li]She was holding the coffee in her hands while taking off the lid. It jerked off suddenly, spilling the coffee in her lap.[/li][li]She received 3rd degree burns. They were so severe she required skin grafts.[/li][li]She asked McDonald’s for enough money to cover her medical bills. McDonald’s refused. So, she sued them for expenses plus pain and suffering.[/li][li]The jury, after hearing the evidence, felt the woman was 20% responsible for the injury, and McDonald’s was 80% responsible, and reduced the award accordingly.[/li][/ul]