| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sam" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2003 06:50:13 PM |
| Object: |
Another Survivor of an Abortion Attempt in 1991 |
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
.
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
01 Aug 2003 10:09:11 AM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote:
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
There are some basic medical facts which cast doubt on this story. A
newborn baby has about 300ml of blood. That's slightly more than a
half-pint. If you severe an arm from a newborn, but do not treat the
wound, the baby will bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Yet, Ana
Rosa was left untreated for 24 hours and then underwent birth! Not
only that, birth took place at 32 weeks, so Ana Rosa's blood volume
was even less than 300ml.
You've been shown these facts before, Sam, and yet you here you are
again, shamelessly lying your ***** off about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
01 Aug 2003 05:38:43 PM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0308010709.75d0c23f@posting.google.com>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote:
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
There are some basic medical facts which cast doubt on this story. A
newborn baby has about 300ml of blood. That's slightly more than a
half-pint. If you severe an arm from a newborn, but do not treat the
wound, the baby will bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Yet, Ana
Rosa was left untreated for 24 hours and then underwent birth! Not
only that, birth took place at 32 weeks, so Ana Rosa's blood volume
was even less than 300ml.
You've been shown these facts before, Sam, and yet you here you are
again, shamelessly lying your ***** off about it.
No, you are lying. This story was reported on American Medical News.
The abortionist was convicted. Are you trying to hide the facts
because they go against your agenda? I believe what the American
Medical News and CNN says is more credible than you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
04 Aug 2003 04:02:23 PM |
|
|
This story was reported on American Medical News.
Spartakus:
Your source is a Usenet post. You still haven't produced an original
source.
The post had the date, name of source and the title of the article in
it. You can go to the library and look it up.
The abortionist was convicted.
Of performing an illegal 3rd-trimester abortion.
Are you trying to hide the facts because they go against your agenda?
*snicker* Let us know when you've actually found a source other than
a Usenet post or a right-to-lie web site.
I believe that the "Kaiser Reproductive Health Report," which is a
source I quoted, is actually a pro-abortion website (as far as I know
it is anyways). Kaiser was on a link on a Planned Parenthood website.
It is NOT a right to life website. Did you ignore this, honestly
looked over it or were you being dishonest on purpose? I know about
reports of abortion places being dishonest to the women coming in for
abortion. I even read about a case where an abortionist was arrested
for pretending like he was performing an abortion on an undercover
policewoman who wasn't even pregnant. However, I've seen the
pro-abortion movement defend the abortion places when evidence of
deception of those places come up. It's common sense to not blindly
trust in people who are getting money off of you to tell you the
unbiased truth but the pro-abortion movement seems to encourage women
to blindly trust in abortion places. That is a great DISSERVICE to
women.
And let us know when you've
figured out how a human being or fetus manages to survive having a
limb torn off for 24 hours without medical treatment, or even first
aid.
I already said that the stories varied about when Ana Rosa Rodriguez
was born after the abortion attempt. I read one article which said
soon afterward. Another article said two days. So, it is unclear when
Ana was born.
I believe what the American Medical News and CNN says is more
credible than you.
You may as well be talking about invisible pink unicorns. So when
will we be seeing you cite an original source?
The title and the name of the article was posted. You can look in the
library. I might check it myself whenever I go to the library.
Excerpt from American Medical News July 5th, 1993
(Published by the American Medical Association)
Shock-tactic ads target late-term
abortion procedure
Foes hope campaign will sink abortion rights
legislation
-Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Sam lies about his sources |
05 Aug 2003 08:56:29 AM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote...
Spartakus wrote:
Sam wrote:
Sam, why can't you get attributions right?
Are you trying to hide the facts because they go against your
agenda?
*snicker* Let us know when you've actually found a source other
than a Usenet post or a right-to-lie web site.
I believe that the "Kaiser Reproductive Health Report," which is a
source I quoted, is actually a pro-abortion website (as far as I know
it is anyways).
According to Google, you have *never* previously cited Kaiser as a
source, so unless you have been posting under other identities, you
have either plagiarized or you are lying. Which is it, Sammy boy?
Kaiser was on a link on a Planned Parenthood website.
It is NOT a right to life website. Did you ignore this,
honestly looked over it or were you being dishonest
on purpose?
You have never cited Kaiser, so it looks as though you are the one
being dishonest here.
I know about reports of abortion places being dishonest to the
women coming in for abortion.
I know of reports of "crisis pregnancy centers" being dishonest and
abusive to the women coming in for help.
I even read about a case where an abortionist was arrested
for pretending like he was performing an abortion on an
undercover policewoman who wasn't even pregnant.
What's your source? "Invisible Pink Unicorns Daily"?
[...]
And let us know when you've figured out how a human being or
fetus manages to survive having a limb torn off for 24 hours
without medical treatment, or even first aid.
I already said that the stories varied about when Ana Rosa Rodriguez
was born after the abortion attempt.
Sam, unless someone stops the bleeding immediately, a newborn would
not live for more than a few minutes after having its arm severed.
And yet you continue to repeat the sensationalized version, despite
its lack of believability. Says volumes for your credibility and your
credulity.
[...]
The title and the name of the article was posted. You can look
in the library. I might check it myself whenever I go to the
library.
You mean, you might actually *read* the sources you cite???
Excerpt from American Medical News July 5th, 1993
(Published by the American Medical Association)
Shock-tactic ads target late-term
abortion procedure
Foes hope campaign will sink abortion rights
legislation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about his sources |
05 Aug 2003 04:30:41 PM |
|
|
Here is my post, which was an August 1 post in which Kaiser was cited.
It is on the "Sam lies about Abu Hayat and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN"
thread.
Also, there has been what seems to be decreprencies in the articles I
read about when Ana Rosa Rodriguez was born after the abortion attempt
in which her arm was lost. As I remember it, one story said 2 days
after, others a day after, another said that evening and another said
shortly afterward. It is unclear about when she was born after the
abortion attempt but to deny the truth reguarding the abortion attempt
in which Abu Hayat tried to kill Ana Rosa Rodriguez shows how some
radical supporters of abortion try to hide the facts. Here is another
link mentiong the conviction of Abu Hayat.
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1993/06/a930615.6.html
Acting NY Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Atlas yesterday
sentenced Manhattan ex-OB/GYN Abu Hayat, who severed the arm of
a
fetus in attempting an illegal abortion, to nine and two-thirds
to 29 years in prison (See REPORT 6/14).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about his sources |
06 Aug 2003 09:55:29 AM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote:
Here is my post, which was an August 1 post in which Kaiser was cited.
It is on the "Sam lies about Abu Hayat and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN"
thread.
[...]
I searched Google using your posting identity and the character string
"Kaiser" as search terms. There were no hits.
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1993/06/a930615.6.html
No "Kaiser" in there...
Given the overwhelming likelihood that Ana Rosa would have bled to
death after having her arm severed, I'm still not convinced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about his sources |
06 Aug 2003 07:06:09 PM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0308060655.7a8a1294@posting.google.com>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote:
Here is my post, which was an August 1 post in which Kaiser was cited.
It is on the "Sam lies about Abu Hayat and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN"
thread.
[...]
I searched Google using your posting identity and the character string
"Kaiser" as search terms. There were no hits.
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1993/06/a930615.6.html
No "Kaiser" in there...
Kaiser is in the link above. The link was also on the August 1 post.
The word, "Kaiser" is not quoted in the post but the Kaiser link was
there. Are you interested in having an intelligent conversation or are
you interested in trolling? Answer me. If you want to talk in a
civilized manner I might be interested but if you are just interested
in trolling then I need not have a flame war with you.
Given the overwhelming likelihood that Ana Rosa would have bled to
death after having her arm severed, I'm still not convinced.
OK, so you don't believe that Ana got her arm cut off. I believe that
the stories on Kaiser and other sources are true that she got her arm
cut off in an abortion attempt. Even if she didn't lose her arm due to
the abortion attempt she is still a survivor. The abortionist tried to
do more than to cut her arm off. I'm glad that she survived. I hope
that more babies survive before going to the abortion places. There is
help, hope and alternatives to abortion.
-Sam
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about his sources |
06 Aug 2003 08:08:35 PM |
|
|
On 6 Aug 2003 07:55:29 -0700, (Spartakus) wrote:
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote:
Here is my post, which was an August 1 post in which Kaiser was cited.
It is on the "Sam lies about Abu Hayat and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN"
thread.
[...]
I searched Google using your posting identity and the character string
"Kaiser" as search terms. There were no hits.
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1993/06/a930615.6.html
Uhh... that looks like the Kaiser Foundation web site to me.
No "Kaiser" in there...
Given the overwhelming likelihood that Ana Rosa would have bled to
death after having her arm severed, I'm still not convinced.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
04 Aug 2003 04:51:43 PM |
|
|
In article <5b6a2e7d.0308041302.485f8a28@posting.google.com>, sa836284
@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says...
Subject: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN
From: (Sam)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women
This story was reported on American Medical News.
Spartakus:
Your source is a Usenet post. You still haven't produced an original
source.
The post had the date, name of source and the title of the article in
it. You can go to the library and look it up.
Like you did (not)????
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
01 Aug 2003 09:19:03 PM |
|
|
Sam <sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0308010709.75d0c23f@posting.google.com>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote:
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
There are some basic medical facts which cast doubt on this story. A
newborn baby has about 300ml of blood. That's slightly more than a
half-pint. If you severe an arm from a newborn, but do not treat the
wound, the baby will bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Yet, Ana
Rosa was left untreated for 24 hours and then underwent birth! Not
only that, birth took place at 32 weeks, so Ana Rosa's blood volume
was even less than 300ml.
You've been shown these facts before, Sam, and yet you here you are
again, shamelessly lying your ***** off about it.
No, you are lying. This story was reported on American Medical News.
Prove it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
01 Aug 2003 05:49:06 PM |
|
|
Also, there has been what seems to be decreprencies in the articles I
read about when Ana Rosa Rodriguez was born after the abortion attempt
in which her arm was lost. As I remember it, one story said 2 days
after, others a day after, another said that evening and another said
shortly afterward. It is unclear about when she was born after the
abortion attempt but to deny the truth reguarding the abortion attempt
in which Abu Hayat tried to kill Ana Rosa Rodriguez shows how some
radical supporters of abortion try to hide the facts. Here is another
link mentiong the conviction of Abu Hayat.
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1993/06/a930615.6.html
Acting NY Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Atlas yesterday
sentenced Manhattan ex-OB/GYN Abu Hayat, who severed the arm of
a
fetus in attempting an illegal abortion, to nine and two-thirds
to 29 years in prison (See REPORT 6/14).
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
01 Aug 2003 05:55:18 PM |
|
|
The article also says that the abortion was stopped in mid-procedure because
the husband couldn't pay, very nearly killing the mother. I haven't heard
anything said about that part of the story. To me this would be a good
argument for keeping it legal and cheap for 1st trimester abortions but
thats just MHO. This isn't the work of a safe, legal, skilled doctor but a
quack who by his own admission isn't even good at the job he was trying to
do. Why anyone on the anti-choice side of the fence would think this
supports their case is beyond me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "geopelia" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam lies about Abu Hayatt and Ana Rosa Rodriguez AGAIN |
04 Aug 2003 09:23:02 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bger72$njnb8$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
The article also says that the abortion was stopped in mid-procedure
because
the husband couldn't pay, very nearly killing the mother. I haven't heard
anything said about that part of the story. To me this would be a good
argument for keeping it legal and cheap for 1st trimester abortions but
thats just MHO. This isn't the work of a safe, legal, skilled doctor but a
quack who by his own admission isn't even good at the job he was trying to
do. Why anyone on the anti-choice side of the fence would think this
supports their case is beyond me.
There must be many people still alive now who survived home and back street
abortions before it became legal. One old method was a pint of gin in a hot
bath to bring on a "delayed period". This often worked, but was the woman
really pregnant? If she was, and the foetus survived, what were the effects
of flooding its system with alcohol in about the third or fourth week of
development? Foetal alcohol syndrome at least?
Other methods, usually ineffective, were violent exercise and deliberate
falls etc.
Intervention by an unskilled quack may have been more certain, but often
killed the woman or left her permanently damaged.
Girls today are really lucky to have the choice.
Geopelia
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H. " |
|
| Title: Re: Another Survivor of an Abortion Attempt in 1991 |
31 Jul 2003 07:04:43 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2003 16:50:13 -0700, (Sam)
wrote:
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
Why keep posting this crap? A fetus could not survive having an arm
'ripped off' for a day (in fact, neither could you), so we can see
that this story is so much propaganda fiction.
---
"The Church says the Earth is Flat,
But I know that it is Round,
For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon,
And I have more Faith in a Shadow
Than in the Church."
Ferdinand Magellan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Survivor of an Abortion Attempt in 1991 |
01 Aug 2003 12:14:52 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." < thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
news:gjbjiv4tlcsgdikcvqmhcsodbo5q7aqag4@4ax.com...
On 31 Jul 2003 16:50:13 -0700, (Sam)
wrote:
Here is a link to a Washington Post editorial by Nat Hentoff,
mentioning a girl who was a survivor of an abortion attempt in 1991.
The pro-abortion movement claims to be pro-woman but if Abu Hayat had
killed this girl then they would probably think that it was OK.
Killing female babies in the womb is NOT pro-woman. It is anti-woman.
It is also anti-woman to treat pro-life women, such Mother Teresa and
other women, with contempt.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html
Why keep posting this crap? A fetus could not survive having an arm
'ripped off' for a day (in fact, neither could you), so we can see
that this story is so much propaganda fiction.
"Ana Rosa was born the day after". The day after can be 5 minutes away if it
took place at 11:55 PM. Who was that guy that severed his arm before hiking
down a canyon to safety? Also, for some strange reason, a fetus can survive
MONTHS without taking one breath of air! Something a man cannot do. Who's to
say that a fetus cannot survive longer than a man, with a severed arm?
---
"The Church says the Earth is Flat,
But I know that it is Round,
For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon,
And I have more Faith in a Shadow
Than in the Church."
Ferdinand Magellan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
