| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 09:04:00 AM |
| Object: |
Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
They deny that medical dictionary's define Partial Birth Abortion
They twists the meaning.
Despite the fact that the evidence is thrown in their face, they still
live in denial.
Ladies and Gentlemen, for the record and for reference I provide for
you the MEDICAL definition of Partial Birth Abortion AND proof that it
is a medical term.
Partial-Birth Abortion
By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director, October 29, 2003
You have probably heard pro-abortion spokespersons claim that
"partial-birth abortion" is a "political" term that is "not found in
medical dictionaries." (Example: NOW President Kim Gandy, Oct. 21,
2003, press release: "Try as you might, you won't find the term
'partial birth abortion' in any medical dictionary.") This claim is
diversionary, since "partial-birth abortion" is a LEGAL term of art
that is defined by Congress in the bill itself (S. 3).
However, the claim is also untrue. If you go to major medical
websites such as Medline at the National Institutes of Health, or the
Intelihealth site affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, and use
the medical dictionary search tools (which access the Merriam Webster
Medical Dictionary), you find "partial-birth abortion" defined as "an
abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the
death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the
birth canal." See:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9276/9276.html
By the way, this widely used medical dictionary does NOT list the
pseudo-medical jargon terms that pro-abortion groups insist are the
proper "medical" terms for the method, "dilation and extraction,"
"intact dilation and evacuation," or "intact dilation and extraction."
For further information on this subject, see "Call It
Partial-Birth Abortion -- It's the Law!" (requires free Adobe Acrobat
Reader). http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/CallItPBA.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
15 Aug 2005 09:38:04 AM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
They deny that medical dictionary's define Partial Birth Abortion
They twists the meaning.
Despite the fact that the evidence is thrown in their face, they still
live in denial.
Ladies and Gentlemen, for the record and for reference I provide for
you the MEDICAL definition of Partial Birth Abortion AND proof that it
is a medical term.
Partial-Birth Abortion
By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director, October 29, 2003
[snip]
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm
Extract:
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
"The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the
potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the
lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon
which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg
case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or
imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth
abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency
(physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to
address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures
used in obstetrics and gynecology."
Ooops. Looks like you've been trumped by the authority again, Mary
Anne.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
15 Aug 2005 07:14:30 PM |
|
|
Adam H. wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists
that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion
in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the
head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull
with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before
completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane
procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html>
Is this a correct quotation from the Act?
I don't see the importance of whether or not it appears in a medical
dictionary - it seems to be quite specific in what it sets out to
prohibit, and describes a procedure that the medical staff will
recognise if they see it, and will know to be illegal - why does it
need to have a medical definition? I find it difficult to believe that
Congress would spend the effort discussing this bill without some
evidence that the procedure had actually been used.
As described it certainly warrants the adjective gruesome. I find it
interesting that the bill contains four references to killing a fetus,
so a majority of elected representatives considered that "killing" was
an appropriate word to use in respect of the fetus when effecting an
abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
15 Aug 2005 07:58:32 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2005 17:14:30 -0700, "jansmif" <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists
that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion
in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the
head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull
with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before
completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane
procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html>
Is this a correct quotation from the Act?
I don't see the importance of whether or not it appears in a medical
dictionary - it seems to be quite specific in what it sets out to
prohibit, and describes a procedure that the medical staff will
recognise if they see it, and will know to be illegal - why does it
need to have a medical definition? I find it difficult to believe that
Congress would spend the effort discussing this bill without some
evidence that the procedure had actually been used.
I don't. This is the Congress that voted to invade Iraq and later it
was found out that most of them that voted hadn't even read exactly
what they were voting on. For my part, all Congresscritters should
have to pass a test showing that they're familiar with what they're
voting on, since that's their job.
Regardless, it IS certain that there are times when that 'gruesome'
procedure is justified. Consider, for example, a fetus with
hydrocephaly that could have a cranial diameter of up to 50 cm, and so
cannot be delivered normally and will not survive in any case - is it
right or humane to put women through the much-riskier caesarian
procedure because it's less 'gruesome'? D&X is not done cavalierly and
not done electively. It is a last-ditch procedure that does have a
place.
As described it certainly warrants the adjective gruesome. I find it
interesting that the bill contains four references to killing a fetus,
so a majority of elected representatives considered that "killing" was
an appropriate word to use in respect of the fetus when effecting an
abortion.
The description of the procedure as set out in the two laws that were
struck down was sufficiently vague as to apply to any number of
procedures used throughout pregnancy. That's one reason why the two
failed.
'Partial birth abortion' is as specific a medical term as 'heart
attack'. When you try to ban all procedures that might fit into the
description, you end up banning almost all abortions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
25 Aug 2005 06:51:36 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
As if declarations of right-wing congress members had any bearing on
the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
30 Aug 2005 01:55:27 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
As if declarations of right-wing congress members had any bearing on
the truth.
Ray, are you saying that this Act was not passed by a majority in
Congress?
If you accept that it was passed by a majority of Congressmen, are you
saying that Congressmen were not elected in accordance with the
constitution?
What difference does the veracity or otherwise of the act make to the
operation of legal system?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
30 Aug 2005 09:16:49 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
As if declarations of right-wing congress members had any bearing on
the truth.
Ray, are you saying that this Act was not passed by a majority in
Congress?
Are you saying that Congress can alter reality simply by passing a law?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
31 Aug 2005 03:20:03 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
As if declarations of right-wing congress members had any bearing on
the truth.
Ray, are you saying that this Act was not passed by a majority in
Congress?
Are you saying that Congress can alter reality simply by passing a law?
I'm not going to play "questions" with you. The questions I put to you
were genuinely intended to clarify your position for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
31 Aug 2005 11:38:57 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Some of the pro-aborts in here claim there is no such procedure known
as Partial Birth Abortion.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called
"partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a
non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion
procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or
D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know
as dilatation and evacuation (D&E)."
The Congress finds and declares the following:
As if declarations of right-wing congress members had any bearing on
the truth.
Ray, are you saying that this Act was not passed by a majority in
Congress?
Are you saying that Congress can alter reality simply by passing a law?
I'm not going to play "questions" with you.
"Run away!"
The questions I put to you
were genuinely intended to clarify your position for me.
Your question was an obvious smokescreen. Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
03 Sep 2005 03:06:20 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion, because if a doctor "delivers an unborn child's body
until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the
child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out
before completing delivery of the dead infant" then he is liable to
prosecution under this law, regardless of whether the term "partial
birth abortion" appears in a medical text book or not.
It will be the extent to which his actions match the description in the
Act that the prosecution's case will depend, not the extent to which
his actions match any descriptions in a medical text book, so why the
issue over whether or not there is a medical definition for it?
Conversely, any other actions by a doctor should fall outside this
Act's scope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
03 Sep 2005 10:59:10 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
because if a doctor "delivers an unborn child's body
until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the
child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out
before completing delivery of the dead infant" then he is liable to
prosecution under this law, regardless of whether the term "partial
birth abortion" appears in a medical text book or not.
And is it better to make a woman suffer and risk her well being
because some arrogant busybodies think that they know what's proper
medical practice?
Is Congress qualified to determine medical practice?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
04 Sep 2005 07:27:12 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
Please clarify - are you referring to the description in the Act, and
if so, in what way is it a lie?
because if a doctor "delivers an unborn child's body
until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the
child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out
before completing delivery of the dead infant" then he is liable to
prosecution under this law, regardless of whether the term "partial
birth abortion" appears in a medical text book or not.
And is it better to make a woman suffer and risk her well being
because some arrogant busybodies think that they know what's proper
medical practice?
Is Congress qualified to determine medical practice?
Ray, you're sidestepping my question which is to do with the relevance
to a court case brought under this act of any medical definitions for
Partial Birth Abortion. I maintain that the description in the Act is
sufficient to bring a prosecution, whether there are medical
definitions for Partial Birth Abortion or not. Regardless of whether
there are or are not such definitions, the Act is sufficiently clear to
be used to prosecute - or am I wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
04 Sep 2005 12:38:08 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
Please clarify - are you referring to the description in the Act, and
if so, in what way is it a lie?
It never happens that doctors kill a fetus is the process of being
birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
04 Sep 2005 12:59:15 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
Please clarify - are you referring to the description in the Act, and
if so, in what way is it a lie?
It never happens that doctors kill a fetus is the process of being
born. The notion that doctors and women deliberately kill viable
fetuses moments before birth is an evil lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jansmif" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
04 Sep 2005 05:42:47 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
Please clarify - are you referring to the description in the Act, and
if so, in what way is it a lie?
It never happens that doctors kill a fetus is the process of being
born.
Ray, I understand you to be saying that the activity described in the
Act never happens. If so, then no-one will ever be prosecuted under
it. I would have thought that you would be happy if no-one was ever
prosecuted under this Act, so why would you be against it still?
How can you be so sure that it never happens? It's not like you're in
every operating theatre across the land and can see for yourself, is
it? Is it that you simply cannot believe that anyone would perform the
procedure as described?
Is this procedure never used for hydrocephaly cases, where the size of
the fetus' head would cause severe damage to the mother if it was
allowed to be fully born?
The notion that doctors and women deliberately kill viable
fetuses moments before birth is an evil lie.
There are several statements wrapped up together here, and there is
ambiguity as to where you feel the untruth lies: are you saying that if
it happens it happens accidentally? Are you saying that they only kill
non-viable fetuses? Are you saying that they kill viable fetuses a
long time before birth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
04 Sep 2005 06:09:08 PM |
|
|
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Nobody sane seriously
believes that Congress can alter the facts just by passing a law.
Ray, this inter-relationship between legislation and "the truth" may
have a bearing on the answer to the question that I am asking.
I don't understand why is it so important to both sides of this debate
to establish whether or not there is a medical definition for partial
birth abortion,
Because what the anti-abortion fanatics have described is almost all a
lie.
Please clarify - are you referring to the description in the Act, and
if so, in what way is it a lie?
It never happens that doctors kill a fetus is the process of being
born.
Ray, I understand you to be saying that the activity described in the
Act never happens.
That's depends upon what the bill says. Many are so poorly worded as
to mean almost anything at all.
How can you be so sure that it never happens?
It is wildly improbable.
It's not like you're in
every operating theatre across the land and can see for yourself, is
it?
A cursory examinaiton of medical practice and a superficial knowledge
of childbirth would be sufficient to show why such a procedure is next
to impossible.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "NPY" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
05 Sep 2005 02:55:00 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray, I understand you to be saying that the activity described in the
Act never happens.
That's depends upon what the bill says. Many are so poorly worded as
to mean almost anything at all.
I quoted the Act earlier in this thread. The description was, to my
mind, quite explicit and not general at all. Do you think that it was
so poorly worded that it could mean almost anything at all?
How can you be so sure that it never happens?
It is wildly improbable.
.... but, by the same token, remotely possible?
It's not like you're in
every operating theatre across the land and can see for yourself, is
it?
A cursory examinaiton of medical practice and a superficial knowledge
of childbirth would be sufficient to show why such a procedure is next
to impossible.
Ray, you haven't answered my question regarding hydrocephaly.
You seem to want to deny that this procedure exists, and are arguing
that the lack of a medical definition for it proves that it doesn't
exist. I sense that, for you to admit that the procedure does exist
(regardless of what it is called) means you would also have to accept an
unacceptable level of callousness and, to use your own term, evil in the
medical staff who would perform it. My understanding is that the
medical profession feel, like you, that Congress is interfering with the
professional judgement of doctors in denying them the choice of method
to deal with, for example, hydrocaphaly in a fetus, which, in turn,
implies that the description in the Act is genuine and is based on what
has happened in operating theatres.
Your earlier comments about Congress changing reality imply that you
consider a majority of congressmen (a majority is needed for their will
to become law) have conspired to enact legislation that contains
gruesome and untrue descriptions of the medical procedures sometimes
allegedly used for abortions for the sole purpose of besmirching the
good name and reputations of medical staff who undertake abortions, and
to sully the pro-choice movement generally. Have I got this summary of
your position right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
05 Sep 2005 03:35:02 PM |
|
|
NPY <nick@sheemuldoon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
jansmif <jansmif@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ray, I understand you to be saying that the activity described in the
Act never happens.
That's depends upon what the bill says. Many are so poorly worded as
to mean almost anything at all.
I quoted the Act earlier in this thread.
What act did you quote?
How can you be so sure that it never happens?
It is wildly improbable.
... but, by the same token, remotely possible?
It is more than remotely possible that you are a serial rapist and
murderer. Should we assume that you have, in fact, commited a string
of heinous crimes?
It's not like you're in
every operating theatre across the land and can see for yourself, is
it?
A cursory examinaiton of medical practice and a superficial knowledge
of childbirth would be sufficient to show why such a procedure is next
to impossible.
Ray, you haven't answered my question regarding hydrocephaly.
I have little patience for idiots and assholes who think that every
stupid question they come up with deserves an answer. If you want to
know how hydrocephaly is dealt with then you can look it up for
yourself.
You seem to want to deny that this procedure exists,
What "procedure"? Intact Dilation and Evacuation? I know that it
exists. I also know that it's not done past about the 7th month of
gestation, despite pro-lie sleaze that claims otherwise.
and are arguing
that the lack of a medical definition for it proves that it doesn't
exist.
No, idiot, that is not what I have argued.
I sense that, for you to admit that the procedure does exist
I sense that you are another ideological fanatic who has to
misrepresent peopel's statements in order to try and justify and
unjustifiable position.
Your earlier comments about Congress changing reality imply that you
consider a majority of congressmen (a majority is needed for their will
to become law)
No, only a majority of those voting.
have conspired
"Conspired". More of your playing games.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Medical Definition for Partial Birth Abortion |
15 Aug 2005 07:54:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:38:04 -0400, Adam H. wrote
(in message <p3a1g15k4cmsvg5dlh6emspnt6ag3ngm35@4ax.com>):
Ooops. Looks like you've been trumped by the authority again, Mary
Anne.
You forgot to address the ladies and gentlemen of Ospreys imaginary audience.
:D
Too funny! :o)
--
"No, I pat myself on the back for duping you guys" --Osprey (reacting like a
true scumbag when busted lying AGAIN.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
