| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2003 05:09:34 PM |
| Object: |
Mona Charen on Abortion |
On November 7, 2003 , Mona Charen's column was
titled: "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Is a Small
Victory." Go to:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20031107.shtml
____________________________________________________________________
"As someone who has followed the partial-birth
abortion controversy for 10 years, I was gratified
to see President Bush sign legislation banning the
procedure. Congress has twice before passed simi-
lar legislation, but President Clinton vetoed them
both times. He justified his decision with indignant
self-righteousness, saying that the ban would
endanger the health and future fertility of women.
Both were false. But then, from the beginning, this
issue has brought out the worst in the pro-abortion
lobby.
"They began by claiming that no such procedure
existed. When this fiction was punctured, NARAL
and Planned Parenthood substituted the argument
that the procedure was extremely rare, performed
only a couple of hundred times a year, and then
only in cases where the life of the mother was at
stake. When this claim was discredited by investi-
gative reporting showing that the true figure was
closer to several thousand than a couple of hundred,
the advocates attacked again, this time claiming the
baby died a painless death before the procedure even
got started due to the anesthesia administered to
the mother. Anesthesiologists testified before
Congress that this false claim caused their preg-
nant patients great anxiety. The truth is that
pregnant women safely undergo surgery all the time
without harm to their developing fetuses. Anesthesia
administered to the mother not only does not kill
the baby, it doesn't harm the baby either.
Advocates next advanced the fiction that partial
birth abortion, which they had renamed the 'intact
dilation and extraction,' was performed only on
severely disabled fetuses or in medical emergen-
cies involving the mother.
This march of mendacity was interrupted by one
burst of candor in 1997. Ron Fitzsimmons, execu-
tive director of the National Coalition of Abortion
Providers, elected to come clean and admit that,
contrary to the 'party line' assertions of most
abortion advocates (himself included), partial-
birth abortions were actually performed several
thousand times a year (perhaps 6,000 to 7,000),
mostly on healthy mothers with healthy babies.
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial birth abor-
tions were performed on babies declared'"viable,'
and in each case the reason cited was the mental,
not physical health of the mother. Other investi-
gations revealed that the reasons women sought
these second trimester abortions were quite
similar to the reasons women chose abortion in
the first trimester.
In fact, partial birth abortions, which chemically
dilate the cervix, can endanger the future fertility
of women who choose them. No medical authorities
have provided testimony that the procedure is ever
medically necessary for the sake of the mother. Why
then did Dr. Martin Haskell originate the procedure?
The answer appears to be that D and E abortions, the
other method for terminating an 18-26 week preg-
nancy, is difficult for doctors to perform in their
offices. A D and E involves dismembering the
fetus in utero and then pulling it out piece by
piece. By the time the fetus is 20 or so weeks
old, he or she becomes difficult to cut. There-
fore the 'intact' evacuation -- pulling the baby
out by the feet, plunging scissors into the skull,
vacuuming out the brain and pulling the col-
lapsed skull through the vagina -- is preferred.
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who was strongly
pro-choice before witnessing a partial-birth
abortion, described her horror at seeing the
partially delivered baby squirming and opening
and closing his fists before the doctor finished
him off.
Abortion advocates have strenuously fought
this legislation as they have other mild pro-
tections for the unborn like the 'Born Alive
Infants Protection Act,' which specified only
that if a child happened to survive an abor-
tion, he or she would enjoy full rights as a
human being. They do this because they are
sure that each new abortion restriction is a
staging ground for the final assault on Roe
v. Wade.
I wish that were true. I'd love to see Roe
overturned and abortion limited as the
states see fit. Sadly, this bill is valuable
as a symbol but little more. It symbolizes
discomfort with the most brutal face of
abortion. But the other forms of second
trimester abortions are equally ghastly,
and the law does not (the advocates' argu-
ments to the contrary notwithstanding)
touch them. There is no question that this
represents a political victory for pro-life
forces. Whether it was a substantive
achievement is open to doubt.
____________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
I believe the PAB is a substantial achievement
because the controversy has caused millions of
Americans to pay attention and think about the
abortion debates who had ignored the topic
before. Many of those were upset by the
brutality of the partial-birth abortion pro-
cedures.
Knowledge and truth are the BIG enemies of the
abortion industry. That's why they work so
hard to insist everyone use such euphemisms as
"CHOICE."
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
01 Dec 2003 10:26:01 AM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
I believe the PAB is a substantial achievement
because the controversy has caused millions of
Americans to pay attention and think about the
abortion debates who had ignored the topic
before. Many of those were upset by the
brutality of the partial-birth abortion pro-
cedures.
Just as millions of Germans were upset about the crimes of Jews.
That too was based upon lies and hatred.
Knowledge and truth are the BIG enemies of the
abortion industry.
That's why you and other anti-abortion fanatics keep getting
caught in one lie after the other.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
01 Dec 2003 09:13:27 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<bqfq2o$6br$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
I believe the PAB is a substantial achievement
because the controversy has caused millions of
Americans to pay attention and think about the
abortion debates who had ignored the topic
before. Many of those were upset by the
brutality of the partial-birth abortion pro-
cedures.
Just as millions of Germans were upset about the crimes of Jews.
That too was based upon lies and hatred.
Knowledge and truth are the BIG enemies of the
abortion industry.
That's why you and other anti-abortion fanatics keep getting
caught in one lie after the other.
Ray, someone needs to tell you that responding to someone's opinion
with an opinion of your own does not constitute a refutation of
anything, nor does it suggest the other person is lying. You keep
confusing your own opinions on these matters with truth. The
Christians should be so brazen!
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
02 Dec 2003 04:45:57 PM |
|
|
LetEmEatWMD@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote in message
news:<85f06f0c.0312011913.28b33c15@posting.google.com>...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Papa Jack <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I believe the PAB is a substantial achievement
because the controversy has caused millions of
Americans to pay attention and think about the
abortion debates who had ignored the topic
before. Many of those were upset by the
brutality of the partial-birth abortion pro-
cedures.
======================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Just as millions of Germans were upset about the crimes of Jews.
That too was based upon lies and hatred.
======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Knowledge and truth are the BIG enemies of the
abortion industry.
======================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's why you and other anti-abortion fanatics keep getting
caught in one lie after the other.
======================================================================
Marie A. wrote:
Ray, someone needs to tell you that responding to
someone's opinion with an opinion of your own does
not constitute a refutation of anything, nor does
it suggest the other person is lying. You keep
confusing your own opinions on these matters with
truth. The Christians should be so brazen!
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Marie, I hate to tell you this, but reasoning
with Ray is a total waste of time.
His first rule is "The Big Lie." He routinely
calls all his opponents liars and hypocrits --
and then writes about how many times they've
been "proven" to be liars and hypocrits. He
clearly depends on the fact that too many folks
will believe anything if one repeats it often
enough.
His second rule is to divert the discussion
AWAY from the point and get opponents involved
in discussions of their own "evil ways."
I normally just ignore anything Ray writes,
but once in awhile I bite back just to show
the senile ol' dog I still have teeth. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
03 Dec 2003 10:11:11 AM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0312021445.56b9ce62@posting.google.com>, Papa Jack
<papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Papa Jack laughed:
Marie, I hate to tell you this, but reasoning
with Ray is a total waste of time.
His first rule is "The Big Lie." He routinely
calls all his opponents liars and hypocrits --
and then writes about how many times they've
been "proven" to be liars and hypocrits. He
clearly depends on the fact that too many folks
will believe anything if one repeats it often
enough.
You are the guy who repeatedly uses propaganda phrases like "chop shop"
and "culture of death." You are the one who relies on the idea that
your fellow hate mongers will believe anything if it fits their hate
filled agenda.
His second rule is to divert the discussion
AWAY from the point and get opponents involved
in discussions of their own "evil ways."
You will say anything.
I normally just ignore anything Ray writes,
but once in awhile I bite back just to show
the senile ol' dog I still have teeth. 8^)
Kind of like a rabid animal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
02 Dec 2003 10:38:31 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Marie, I hate to tell you this, but reasoning
with Ray is a total waste of time.
Because every time you try you get spanked and shown up as
an immoral hypocrite.
His first rule is "The Big Lie." He routinely
calls all his opponents liars and hypocrits --
"All" Jackass? Every single one?
and then writes about how many times they've
been "proven" to be liars and hypocrits.
For example: You keep screeching about a right to kill even
though it's been explained countless times that there is no right
to kill.
He
clearly depends on the fact that too many folks
will believe anything if one repeats it often
enough.
Jackass, as revealed by his own words.
He _claims_ he wants to debate ...
I am always willing to debate,
Papa Jackass in <3380A603.1189@express-news.net>
But whenever challenged he runs away. Maybe he means that only
_other_ people are expected to debate.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Papa Jackass in <31E7BC11.674F@express-news.net>
Jackass is a known liar, but then, he's already pretty much admitted
as much.
When you can't meet someone in honest debate, you run around
spreading total, complete lies about them.
Papa Jackass in <331518B2.3221@express-news.net>
And his typical reaction when he's inevitably revealed to be a liar
and a hypocrite?
K I S S M Y A S S!!!! D I D Y O U U N D E R S T A N D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W H A T I S A I D? K I S S M Y A S S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Papa Jackass in <31FFC35F.4D2A@express-news.net>
The question people ask after reading Jackass's contributions?
But WHY do YOU prefer to attack the person rather than the
argument
Papa Jackass in <3213893E.1DD7@express-news.net>
But he's answered that question too.
You have no interest in abortion issues. You are a little boy
running around agitating both sides.
Papa Jackass in <330A415B.2497@express-news.net>
Of course, he needs to pretend to be interested in the debate so that
people just don't ignore him for the amoral old fool that he is.
And so he'll periodically claim that he's interested in debate.
I prefer to discuss things at the adult level,
Papa Jackass in <3377230D.4EA3@express-news.net>
Alas, such claims are never backed up with actual debate. What we get
instead is ...
Society has no responsibility to make sure you can safely
screw around on your husband, MINXS. If you want to be a *****
and jump from bed to bed, why bother to get married?
Papa Jackass in <3495FB4F.C35ACEDE@express-news.net>
Once again, we see Mark proving that he is the stinkinest
***** on talk.abortion. Ray gives him a close run, but I'm
going to award the AH Award to Mark. He is a totally pathetic
excuse for a human being.
Papa Jackass in <3359AD8D.1EBA@express-news.net>
And then again those sort of insults followed with another pretense of
moral superiority.
Now if you want to play with the big boys and girls, clean up your
language, cut out the shock tactics, treat others religious beliefs
(or lack thereof) with reasonable respect, and try logic versus
bluster and noise.
Papa Jackass in <34F5F0C8.25EA0A32@geocities.com>
Which leads people to wonder which part of ...
Ah, I finally found how to get your attention. Guess I'll
have to call you Fuckface, *****, and limpdick more often,
Papa Jackass in <335483D4.3238@express-news.net>
Constitutes "reasonable respect". Who knows. Ethics and morality
seem to have no relevance to the world of Jackass.
Please note that I deleted a number of words in several of
Ray's statements without showing the editing. This, of
course, changed the meaning of what he said in a dishonest
and false way.
Papa Jackass in <3245F156.1BEF@express-news.net>
Sometimes he''l even demonstrate hypocrisy in a single sentence.
Gosh, Paul, I never pictured you as being into totally illogical and
overripe emotionalism -- or, are you just pandering?
Papa Jackass in <34B8534B.9E3D6A7D@geocities.com>
Sometimes he acts reasonable ...
You must do more than make edicts -- you must persuade with
logic, facts, figures, expert opinion -- you know, evidence
and "stuff" like that.
Papa Jackass in <31FBAD5A.526F@express-news.net>
Only to revert to a more typical behavior.
Second, why should I apologize for calling a ***** what
he really is. You and I both know Mark is one of the most
cold-blooded and vicious human beings on the newsgroups.
Papa Jackass in <336E66C7.7D89@express-news.net>
I am demonstrating for all to read that you are a toothless
*****. I am insulting you several times a day and there's not
a damn thing you can do about it but run around trying to
bluff me.
Papa Jackass in <33935ACD.5C32@express-news.net>
But there _is_ an explanation.
See, you just make up slurs like this out of whole cloth
and sling them around like mud and manure. You have no
basis for what you say, you just figure it will make
the Pro-[Choice] side look bad, so you say it. Can you
spell sleeze? How about crap?
Papa Jackass in <32019770.29AC@express-news.net>
I feel free to say you are STILL SPREADING DISTORTIONS AND
LIES. But what else is new?
Papa Jackass in <32019770.29AC@express-news.net>
Once again [Jackass] demonstrates that words like "integrity," "truth,"
"fairness," and "decency" have no place in his world. He, of course
is a total sleazebag who will say anything to smear his opponents.
Papa Jackass in <3384DECE.31F5@express-news.net>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Mona Charen on Abortion |
01 Dec 2003 06:17:25 PM |
|
|
On November 7, 2003 , Mona Charen's column was
titled: "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Is a Small
Victory." Go to:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20031107.shtml
____________________________________________________________________
"As someone who has followed the partial-birth
abortion controversy for 10 years, I was gratified
to see President Bush sign legislation banning the
procedure. Congress has twice before passed simi-
lar legislation, but President Clinton vetoed them
both times. He justified his decision with indignant
self-righteousness, saying that the ban would
endanger the health and future fertility of women.
Both were false. But then, from the beginning, this
issue has brought out the worst in the pro-abortion
lobby.
"They began by claiming that no such procedure
existed. When this fiction was punctured, NARAL
and Planned Parenthood substituted the argument
that the procedure was extremely rare, performed
only a couple of hundred times a year, and then
only in cases where the life of the mother was at
stake. When this claim was discredited by investi-
gative reporting showing that the true figure was
closer to several thousand than a couple of hundred,
the advocates attacked again, this time claiming the
baby died a painless death before the procedure even
got started due to the anesthesia administered to
the mother. Anesthesiologists testified before
Congress that this false claim caused their preg-
nant patients great anxiety. The truth is that
pregnant women safely undergo surgery all the time
without harm to their developing fetuses. Anesthesia
administered to the mother not only does not kill
the baby, it doesn't harm the baby either.
Advocates next advanced the fiction that partial
birth abortion, which they had renamed the 'intact
dilation and extraction,' was performed only on
severely disabled fetuses or in medical emergen-
cies involving the mother.
This march of mendacity was interrupted by one
burst of candor in 1997. Ron Fitzsimmons, execu-
tive director of the National Coalition of Abortion
Providers, elected to come clean and admit that,
contrary to the 'party line' assertions of most
abortion advocates (himself included), partial-
birth abortions were actually performed several
thousand times a year (perhaps 6,000 to 7,000),
mostly on healthy mothers with healthy babies.
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial birth abor-
tions were performed on babies declared'"viable,'
and in each case the reason cited was the mental,
not physical health of the mother. Other investi-
gations revealed that the reasons women sought
these second trimester abortions were quite
similar to the reasons women chose abortion in
the first trimester.
In fact, partial birth abortions, which chemically
dilate the cervix, can endanger the future fertility
of women who choose them. No medical authorities
have provided testimony that the procedure is ever
medically necessary for the sake of the mother. Why
then did Dr. Martin Haskell originate the procedure?
The answer appears to be that D and E abortions, the
other method for terminating an 18-26 week preg-
nancy, is difficult for doctors to perform in their
offices. A D and E involves dismembering the
fetus in utero and then pulling it out piece by
piece. By the time the fetus is 20 or so weeks
old, he or she becomes difficult to cut. There-
fore the 'intact' evacuation -- pulling the baby
out by the feet, plunging scissors into the skull,
vacuuming out the brain and pulling the col-
lapsed skull through the vagina -- is preferred.
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who was strongly
pro-choice before witnessing a partial-birth
abortion, described her horror at seeing the
partially delivered baby squirming and opening
and closing his fists before the doctor finished
him off.
Abortion advocates have strenuously fought
this legislation as they have other mild pro-
tections for the unborn like the 'Born Alive
Infants Protection Act,' which specified only
that if a child happened to survive an abor-
tion, he or she would enjoy full rights as a
human being. They do this because they are
sure that each new abortion restriction is a
staging ground for the final assault on Roe
v. Wade.
I wish that were true. I'd love to see Roe
overturned and abortion limited as the
states see fit. Sadly, this bill is valuable
as a symbol but little more. It symbolizes
discomfort with the most brutal face of
abortion. But the other forms of second
trimester abortions are equally ghastly,
and the law does not (the advocates' argu-
ments to the contrary notwithstanding)
touch them. There is no question that this
represents a political victory for pro-life
forces. Whether it was a substantive
achievement is open to doubt.
____________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
I believe the PAB is a substantial achievement
because the controversy has caused millions of
Americans to pay attention and think about the
abortion debates who had ignored the topic
before. Many of those were upset by the
brutality of the partial-birth abortion pro-
cedures.
Knowledge and truth are the BIG enemies of the
abortion industry. That's why they work so
hard to insist everyone use such euphemisms as
"CHOICE."
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
