| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Auric Hellman" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 12:05:30 AM |
| Object: |
Memorial wall for abortion victims |
100 hold vigil at memorial wall for buried fetuses
By Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, Rocky Mountain News
January 22, 2005
BOULDER - The stars twinkled in a velvet black sky Friday as Diane
Sillstrop carried a candle for the twins she aborted in 1976 when she
was 21.
About 100 abortion foes joined Sillstrop to grieve at a Memorial Wall
for the Unborn in a graveyard at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church. They
carried candles and brought flowers for an estimated 5,000 fetuses who
have been buried at the church since 1996.
Catholic Church officials and volunteers plan to bury the remains from
another 1,000 fetuses Sunday. The burial coincides with the 32nd
anniversary today of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that
legalized abortion.
The fetal remains came from the Boulder Abortion Clinic. Unbeknownst to
Dr. Warren Hern, director of the clinic, the Crist Mortuary of Boulder
had been picking up fetal remains and delivering them to the church.
Disturbed by the remains, church officials and abortion foes decided to
build the memorial wall, which they dedicated in 2000.
Hern blasted the Catholic Church for what he said was exploitation of
his patients' pain.
"I am appalled that the Catholic Church again has shown its willingness
to exploit the private grief and pain of women seeking legal abortions
in order to advance its political goals," Hern said in a written
statement. "I am also appalled that the officers of Crist Mortuary,
which performs important work requiring public trust . . . have
publicly admitted that they have collaborated with this cynical
exploitation of private grief for political purposes."
Advocates for abortion rights said that many women who received
abortions at Hern's clinic had babies with fatal abnormalities. Hern
said abortion foes would stop "at nothing to inflict guilt and to
compound the grief, sadness and sense of loss that these women
experience. These fanatics simply cannot leave other people alone with
their most intimate sorrow."
Sillstrop and other abortion foes said they understand why public
revelations about the burials have been so explosive, especially for
women whose fetuses may be buried at the church.
"I know this isn't easy," Sillstrop said. "I hope and pray that they
can find what I have found here - healing."
Any woman who has had an abortion can request an acknowledgment of her
fetus at the Memorial Wall. Church officials estimate there are between
100 and 200 such plaques.
Now 49, Sillstrop wishes she had kept her twins. A plaque in their
memory sits on the wall. It notes the day Sillstrop had her abortion,
Aug. 11, 1976, and says, "Your lives have touched many."
Sillstrop, who has had three other children and who has become a
counselor to girls considering abortion, thinks the wall is vital for
women dealing with the pain of a poor decision. "Abortion gnaws at the
soul," she said.
Susan LaVelle has been helping with the burials for years and has
counseled expectant mothers at the Real Choices Pregnancy Center in
Boulder.
She and Father Dorino DeLazzer of the Sacred Heart of Mary parish
decided last spring that they should tell the public about the fetal
remains.
LaVelle said she knows that the Boulder Abortion Clinic will
undoubtedly find a different way now to dispose of the remains. Even
so, she said it was vital to let people know how significant the wall
is.
"It gives everyone, whether they've had an abortion or not, a place to
grieve the loss of so many babies over the last 32 years," she said.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 12:01:56 AM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
And a consequence of sex is an abortion.
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of hunger,
but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose to
let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a fetus
die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving children. A
woman
does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women go to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is killed
by
the abortion.
Children are alive and die of starvation.
The die of influenza too.
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of food
and clean water.
Thus, you spend money on toys just so that children will die.
Murderer.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite distorted -
You're lying, *****.
The woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
The
result is that a fetus dies.
It does not abort itself. It is killed.
Starving children don't commit suicide - they are killed.
The problem you are having is that you are trying to equate a woman and
a doctor proactively seeking the death of the unborn
And there you are spewing your lies again.
Your ideology has been corrupted by hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 09:46:27 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
And a consequence of sex is an abortion.
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a
choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of
hunger,
but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose to
let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a fetus
die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving children.
A
woman
does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women go
to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is
killed
by
the abortion.
Children are alive and die of starvation.
The die of influenza too.
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Thus, you spend money on toys just so that children will die.
Murderer.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite distorted
-
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying or I'd be indicted for murdering starving
children.
The woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
The
result is that a fetus dies.
It does not abort itself. It is killed.
Starving children don't commit suicide - they are killed.
The problem you are having is that you are trying to equate a woman
and
a doctor proactively seeking the death of the unborn
And there you are spewing your lies again.
Point out the lie.
Your ideology has been corrupted by hate.
You "love" murder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 10:16:16 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a
choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of
hunger,
but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose to
let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a fetus
die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving children.
A
woman
does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women go
to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is
killed
by
the abortion.
Children are alive and die of starvation.
The die of influenza too.
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Because you said so. People should be forced to keep children alive,
even if it means losing freedom and money and risking one's life.
Of are you claiming that only women should be forced to make
sacrifices?
Thus, you spend money on toys just so that children will die.
Murderer.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite distorted
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying
Stop lying, *****. You want to make women slaves, forced to provide
the use of their bodies in order to keep fetuses alive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 11:10:19 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a
choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of
hunger,
but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose
to
let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a
fetus
die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving
children.
A
woman
does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women
go
to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is
killed
by
the abortion.
Children are alive and die of starvation.
The die of influenza too.
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Because you said so. People should be forced to keep children alive,
even if it means losing freedom and money and risking one's life.
Of are you claiming that only women should be forced to make
sacrifices?
Thus, you spend money on toys just so that children will die.
Murderer.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite
distorted
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying
Stop lying, *****.
Your definitions of "slavery" and "murder" are unsupportable.
You want to make women slaves, forced to provide
the use of their bodies in order to keep fetuses alive.
I want some of them to stop killing their children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 01:11:01 AM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Because you said so. People should be forced to keep children alive,
even if it means losing freedom and money and risking one's life.
Of are you claiming that only women should be forced to make
sacrifices?
No answer?
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite
distorted
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying
Stop lying, *****.
Your definitions of "slavery" and "murder" are unsupportable.
Look in a dictionary.
slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
You want to make women slaves, forced to provide
the use of their bodies in order to keep fetuses alive.
I want some of them to stop killing their children.
So you don't mind if women merely remove fetuses from within their
bodies? Your objection is only to the method of ending the pregnancy
and not to the fact that they do get to end their pregnancies?
Or were you lying again?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud Sponsor of the 2004 Conservative Mandate" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 11:52:51 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth
of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Because you said so. People should be forced to keep children
alive,
even if it means losing freedom and money and risking one's life.
Of are you claiming that only women should be forced to make
sacrifices?
No answer?
Everyone makes sacrifices.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite
distorted
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying
Stop lying, *****.
Your definitions of "slavery" and "murder" are unsupportable.
Look in a dictionary.
slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
Who is the "another?"
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
"Completely" means 9 months?
"Subservient" and "dominating influence" mean you can do anything but
abuse yourself or the baby?
You want to make women slaves, forced to provide
the use of their bodies in order to keep fetuses alive.
I want some of them to stop killing their children.
So you don't mind if women merely remove fetuses from within their
bodies?
They kill it first. If they merely remove it, it's born. If they kill
it then, it's murder.
Your objection is only to the method of ending the pregnancy
and not to the fact that they do get to end their pregnancies?
My objection is to killing the baby on purpose.
Or were you lying again?
Show me a lie that I made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 05:50:57 PM |
|
|
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth
of
food
and clean water.
How am I responsible for that?
Because you said so. People should be forced to keep children
alive,
even if it means losing freedom and money and risking one's life.
Or are you claiming that only women should be forced to make
sacrifices?
No answer?
Everyone makes sacrifices.
Except you, it seems.
You're just a control freak who wants to make women suffer.
Of course, like your definition of "slavery" you are quite
distorted
You're lying, *****.
Of course I'm not lying
Stop lying, *****.
Your definitions of "slavery" and "murder" are unsupportable.
Look in a dictionary.
slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
Who is the "another?"
The fetus or the anti-abortion zealot.
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
"Completely" means 9 months?
If you get sentenced to 6 months in jail does it not count because
it's only 6 months?
"Subservient" and "dominating influence" mean you can do anything but
abuse yourself or the baby?
Black slaves of 200 years ago had a few freedoms as well. They were
still slaves.
You want to make women slaves, forced to provide
the use of their bodies in order to keep fetuses alive.
I want some of them to stop killing their children.
So you don't mind if women merely remove fetuses from within their
bodies?
They kill it first.
So drugs which cause an embryo to be expelled don't count?
If they merely remove it, it's born.
Unless it dies because it cannot survive without the use of her body.
And you didn't answer the quesiton.
Your objection is only to the method of ending the pregnancy
and not to the fact that they do get to end their pregnancies?
My objection is to killing the baby on purpose.
No, your objection is to women having sex and not inviting you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Murdoc" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 01:50:42 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
And a consequence of sex is an abortion.
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of hunger,
but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose to
let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a fetus
die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving children. A
woman
does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women go to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is killed
by
the abortion.
Children are alive and die of starvation.
The die of influenza too.
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of food
and clean water.
So to how many children do you give $20/month worth of food and clean water, Ray?
<snipped rest />
--
Murdoc
Posted with XanaNews v1.17.2.7
We are what we repeatedly do. - Aristotle,
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 06:50:25 AM |
|
|
"Murdoc" <murdoc_0@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xn0dym9eodsyb004@news.individual.net:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Children die of hunger because they don't have $20/month worth of
food and clean water.
So to how many children do you give $20/month worth of food and clean
water, Ray?
what would a forger and wannabe child beater like you care?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
16 Feb 2005 10:38:58 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1108569179.350000.103840
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Ray Fischer wrote:
< > wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
< > wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
And a consequence of sex is an abortion.
but your desire to punish women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a choice.
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal.
I asked why YOU are free to kill children.
You can count on me not to exercise that right though.
You do every day. Thousands of people die every day of hunger, but
rather than inconvenience yourself by helping, you choose to let
them die in the same way that a woman chooses to let a fetus die.
I'm not taking a pro-active roll in killing starving children. A
woman does when she goes to an abortion doctor and pays the fee.
That's the big lie. Abortion is not about killing. Women go to
doctors to end a pregnancy - not to kill.
It obviously is not a lie. The fetus is alive and then it is killed by
the abortion. The argument is whether it's murder or not.
Abortion simply removes the unwanted z/e/f from the woman's body. If it
cannot survive being removed, that's the way it goes. If the fetus is
never born_alive, you cannot "murder" it.
The woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth. The
result is that a fetus dies.
It does not abort itself. It is killed.
What about spontaneous abortions (miscarriages)? Seems like the z/e/f
aborts itself in that situation. If, as you say, "it is killed", who
"kills" it?
You don't want to give up your money and freedom. The result is that
children die.
I've never encouraged anyone to have an abortion. My wife didn't have
any abortions therefore I'm giving up my money and freedom so children
may live.
Too bad your mother didn't have an abortion before you were born, you
insensitive fool. Think about the poor women who have had miscarriages
(spontaneous abortions) before you say such stupid things. Your wife could
have been among them.
If a woman should be forced to suffer pain, injury, risk, and
expense in order to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't YOU
be forced to give up your freedom, time, and money in order to
keep starving children alive?
I do.
You didn't answer my question.
I do give up my freedom, time, and money in order to keep starving
children alive.
1) That's *****
Really? How would you know?
Because most of what you say here is bs.
2) That isn't an answer to the question.
I answered it directly.
No, you danced around the question.
Why shouldn't you be FORCED to give up your time and money and
freedom?
I am forced to take care of children. Why should I have the right to
kill them if I feel their an inconvenience?
Because they were born_alive and it would be murder to kill them? Why are
most of you anti-choice loons obsessed with killing children?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
15 Feb 2005 04:26:46 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 10:02:49 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal. You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
Unless you're a pregnant woman you're physically incapable of doing
so, so your "choice" to not do so is nonsense.
If a woman should be forced to suffer pain, injury, risk, and expense
in order to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't YOU be forced to
give up your freedom, time, and money in order to keep starving
children alive?
I do.
Not the ones of your choice - the ones someone else forces you to
support against your will.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
15 Feb 2005 10:54:35 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 10:02:49 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are you free to kill children?
Because abortion is legal. You can count on me not to exercise that
right though.
Unless you're a pregnant woman you're physically incapable of doing
so, so your "choice" to not do so is nonsense.
It would be very dangerous for a woman to give herself an abortion. I
can legally conspire with a woman to kill her unborn child by abortion
like she does with a doctor.
If a woman should be forced to suffer pain, injury, risk, and
expense
in order to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't YOU be forced
to
give up your freedom, time, and money in order to keep starving
children alive?
I do.
Not the ones of your choice - the ones someone else forces you to
support against your will.
Someone is supporting these children. Who is it then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
16 Feb 2005 01:13:33 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 20:54:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 10:02:49 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Unless you're a pregnant woman you're physically incapable of doing
so, so your "choice" to not do so is nonsense.
It would be very dangerous for a woman to give herself an abortion. I
can legally conspire with a woman to kill her unborn child by abortion
like she does with a doctor.
It's still none of your business whether any pregnant woman has an
abortion unless you're that pregnant woman.
If a woman should be forced to suffer pain, injury, risk, and expense
in order to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't YOU be forced to
give up your freedom, time, and money in order to keep starving
children alive?
I do.
Not the ones of your choice - the ones someone else forces you to
support against your will.
Someone is supporting these children. Who is it then?
Not all children are being supported. Where did you get such an
insane idea?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
16 Feb 2005 09:57:12 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 20:54:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 10:02:49 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Unless you're a pregnant woman you're physically incapable of
doing
so, so your "choice" to not do so is nonsense.
It would be very dangerous for a woman to give herself an abortion.
I
can legally conspire with a woman to kill her unborn child by
abortion
like she does with a doctor.
It's still none of your business whether any pregnant woman has an
abortion unless you're that pregnant woman.
So if I see an injustice like slavery in America or genocide in Rwanda
- it's none of my business because it doesn't involve me? Sorry, the
world is a better place now because not everyone sits on their hands.
If a woman should be forced to suffer pain, injury, risk, and
expense
in order to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't YOU be
forced to
give up your freedom, time, and money in order to keep starving
children alive?
I do.
Not the ones of your choice - the ones someone else forces you to
support against your will.
Someone is supporting these children. Who is it then?
Not all children are being supported. Where did you get such an
insane idea?
It's my responsibility to support "all children" - not just the ones I
can?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
16 Feb 2005 08:14:16 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
It's still none of your business whether any pregnant woman has an
abortion unless you're that pregnant woman.
So if I see an injustice like slavery in America or genocide in Rwanda
- it's none of my business because it doesn't involve me?
Interesting that you should cite slavery given that what you demand is
slavery for pregnant women.
Until YOU are willing to pay the price you have no right to demand
anything of pregnant women. They are not your slaves.
Sorry, the
world is a better place now because not everyone sits on their hands.
I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator.
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 06:00:30 PM |
|
|
On 16 Feb 2005 07:57:12 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 20:54:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
It's still none of your business whether any pregnant woman has an
abortion unless you're that pregnant woman.
So if I see an injustice like slavery in America
The only one promoting slavery is you - enslaving pregnant women.
It's my responsibility to support "all children" - not just the ones I
can?
It's a pregnant woman's responsibility to carry to term those children
you tell her to? Where do you get off?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
17 Feb 2005 11:06:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 07:57:12 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 20:54:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
It's still none of your business whether any pregnant woman has an
abortion unless you're that pregnant woman.
So if I see an injustice like slavery in America
The only one promoting slavery is you - enslaving pregnant women.
It's my responsibility to support "all children" - not just the ones
I
can?
It's a pregnant woman's responsibility to carry to term those
children
you tell her to? Where do you get off?
I'm telling them not to kill children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 12:29:24 PM |
|
|
On 17 Feb 2005 21:06:54 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 07:57:12 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
It's a pregnant woman's responsibility to carry to term those children
you tell her to? Where do you get off?
I'm telling them not to kill children.
Where do you get off? It's HER body. If you're offering your body to
complete the pregnancy, that's different. If not, you're part of the
problem, not the solution.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 02:01:26 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 21:06:54 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 07:57:12 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
It's a pregnant woman's responsibility to carry to term those
children
you tell her to? Where do you get off?
I'm telling them not to kill children.
Where do you get off? It's HER body. If you're offering your body
to
complete the pregnancy, that's different. If not, you're part of the
problem, not the solution.
Can you articulate my position at all? Why don't you try to see if you
have it right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
18 Feb 2005 04:56:10 PM |
|
|
On 18 Feb 2005 12:01:26 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Can you articulate my position at all?
Yes, you want to keep pregnant women from having abortions. Your
reason doesn't matter - if it's not your body it's not your choice.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 10:47:48 AM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 15:45:14 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:49:28 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The anti-abortion zealots make the very same mistake by
insisting
that they get to treat pregnant women like slaves.
Other than the fact most women will enter this type of slavery
willingly
Almost NO woman who wants an abortion wanted to become pregnant.
Almost every woman knew the risks before having sex.
That's not willingly becoming pregnant,
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
That's certainly true. When one has sex, the woman takes a chance that
she will become pregnant. It doesn't follow, however, that she *wants*
to become pregnant, or is actively seeking to become pregnant. And,
even if she wants to, and has sex with the express purpose of becoming
so, it doesn't follow that she can't change her mind and terminate the
pregnancy.
The act of sex doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a legally binding
contract that, should pregnancy occur, she must carry the pregnancy to
term.
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a choice.
And here we come to the core of the problem: what status do we assign
to something, and why? I could be described as a collection of cells...
and you could describe a steak the same way. What leads me to have the
status of "person", and the steak to have the status of "food"? In the
case of pregnancy, what status do we assign to a fertilized egg? A
blastocyst? A fetus of N weeks? The answers to these questions aren't
at all obvious.
Personally, I think the assignment of "person" to "fertilized egg" or
"blastocyst" is just plain silly, because neither is quantitatively nor
qualitatively sufficiently similar to a baby so as to justify granting
it the status we grant a baby. In short, abortion does not,
necessarily, "kill a kid."
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 12:18:00 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 15:45:14 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:49:28 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The anti-abortion zealots make the very same mistake by
insisting
that they get to treat pregnant women like slaves.
Other than the fact most women will enter this type of
slavery
willingly
Almost NO woman who wants an abortion wanted to become
pregnant.
Almost every woman knew the risks before having sex.
That's not willingly becoming pregnant,
It's a risk. With risks their are consequences.
That's certainly true. When one has sex, the woman takes a chance
that
she will become pregnant. It doesn't follow, however, that she
*wants*
to become pregnant, or is actively seeking to become pregnant. And,
even if she wants to, and has sex with the express purpose of
becoming
so, it doesn't follow that she can't change her mind and terminate
the
pregnancy.
The act of sex doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a legally
binding
contract that, should pregnancy occur, she must carry the pregnancy
to
term.
As of right now. That will change when society realizes that the
pre-born are human beings.
but your desire to punish
women is noted.
What's the alternative? To kill a kid? That's not a choice.
And here we come to the core of the problem: what status do we assign
to something, and why? I could be described as a collection of
cells...
You are a collection of cells.
and you could describe a steak the same way. What leads me to have
the
status of "person", and the steak to have the status of "food"? In
the
case of pregnancy, what status do we assign to a fertilized egg? A
blastocyst? A fetus of N weeks? The answers to these questions aren't
at all obvious.
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
Personally, I think the assignment of "person" to "fertilized egg" or
"blastocyst" is just plain silly, because neither is quantitatively
nor
qualitatively sufficiently similar to a baby so as to justify
granting
it the status we grant a baby. In short, abortion does not,
necessarily, "kill a kid."
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 04:17:28 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 10:18:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
The act of sex doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a legally binding
contract that, should pregnancy occur, she must carry the pregnancy to
term.
As of right now. That will change when society realizes that the
pre-born are human beings.
No, ALL that will change is that a lot more women will have illegal
abortions. The same as before they were legal.
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
No physical difference. What's the physical difference between a live
human being and one that's just died? None at all in the microsecond
after death, yet the dead person has just lost an awful lot of
"rights" he had just a microsecond ago.
"Rights" don't usually depend on physical differences.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 12:46:37 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 10:18:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
....
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
Who is rationalizing that it is acceptable to kill a healthy full term
fetus? As far as I know most if not all States have laws against
such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 02:08:41 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42cac5c9.339047644@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 4 Feb 2005 10:18:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
Who is rationalizing that it is acceptable to kill a healthy full term
fetus?
john kerry. see his votes in re Partial Birth Abortion - for the HEALTH of
the mother
ie, if you are clinically depressed, it's ok to abort a fetus immediately
prior to conception
whit
As far as I know most if not all States have laws against
such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 06:03:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:08:41 GMT, "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42cac5c9.339047644@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 4 Feb 2005 10:18:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
Who is rationalizing that it is acceptable to kill a healthy full term
fetus?
john kerry. see his votes in re Partial Birth Abortion - for the HEALTH of
the mother
"partial birth abortions" are a late second trimester procedure, not a
full term procedure. Idiot!
ie, if you are clinically depressed, it's ok to abort a fetus immediately
prior to conception
whit
As far as I know most if not all States have laws against
such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 06:35:09 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42040e95.439835880@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:08:41 GMT, "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42cac5c9.339047644@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 4 Feb 2005 10:18:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
That's why the anti-abortion crowd break down the argument to it's
obvious components. What is the physical diffrence between a baby a
day
after it's birth and that same baby 2 days earlier that rationalizes
that one can be killed and the other cannot.
Who is rationalizing that it is acceptable to kill a healthy full term
fetus?
john kerry. see his votes in re Partial Birth Abortion - for the HEALTH
of
the mother
"partial birth abortions" are a late second trimester procedure, not a
full term procedure. Idiot!
cite please
whit
ie, if you are clinically depressed, it's ok to abort a fetus immediately
prior to conception
whit
As far as I know most if not all States have laws against
such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 09:47:20 PM |
|
|
Sangfroid <jung@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
"partial birth abortions" are a late second trimester procedure, not a
full term procedure. Idiot!
cite please
========================================================================
Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion
Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar,
September 13, 1992
(BY MARTIN HASKELL, M.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in
that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are
inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.
Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an
adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and
Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's
office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients
20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of
complications.
Background D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation
methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This happened
in part because of lack of hospital facilities allowing second trimester
abortions in some geographic areas, in part because surgeons needed a
`right now' solution to complete
suction abortions inadvertently started in the second trimester and in
part to provide a means of early second trimester abortion to avoid
necessary delays for instillation methods. 1
The North Carolina Conference in 1978 established D&E as the preferred
method for early second trimester abortions in the U.S. 2 , 3 , 4
Footnotes at end of article.
Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus
with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated
cervix. 5
However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to
be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of
development.
Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an
induction method. 6 , 7 , 8
Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been described at
previous NAF meetings. The first relies on sterile urea intra-amniotic
infusion to cause fetal demise and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues
prior to surgery. 9
The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours prior to
surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and ensuing autolysis
soften the tissues. There are attendant risks of infection with this
method.
In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely upon some
means to induce early fetal demise to soften the fetal tissues making
dismemberment easier.
Patient Selection the author routinely performs this procedure on all
patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author
performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
The author refers for induction patients falling into the following
categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than
20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks;
patients 26 weeks and over.
Description of Dilation and Extraction Method
Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be
described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound
visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull
decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.
Day 1--Dilation
The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock
scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.
In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated
to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are
placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.
Day 2--Dilation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15
and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns
home or to a motel overnight.
Day 3--The Operation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin
intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a
tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's
abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan
provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and
approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then
held in position over the lower extremities.
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or
Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the
uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip
of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When
the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to
open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity.
The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a
version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the
vagina.
By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the
fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his
instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.
With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to
deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and
the upper extremities.
The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not
enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or
spine up.
At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left
had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus
with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of
the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying
traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts
and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction
to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a
pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully
advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle
finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of
his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe
elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the
base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the
skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into
this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in
place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the
patient.
The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the
uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The
procedure ends.
Recovery
Patients are observed a minimum of 2 hours following surgery. A pad
check and vital signs are performed every 30 minutes. Patients with
minimal bleeding after 30 minutes are encouraged to walk about the
building or outside between checks.
Intravenous fluids, pitocin and antibiotics are available for the
exceptional times they are needed.
Anesthesia Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine administered intra-cervically
is the standard anesthesia. Nitrous-oxide/oxygen analgesic is
administered nasally as an adjunct. For the Dilapan insert and Dilapan
change, 12cc's is used in 3 equidistant locations around the cervix. For
the surgery, 24cc's is used at 6 equidistant spots.
Carbocaine 1% is substituted for lidocaine for patients who expressed
lidocaine sensitivity.
Medications
All patients not allergic to tetracycline analogues receive doxycycline
200 mgm by mouth daily for 3 days beginning Day 1.
Patients with any history of gonorrhea, chlamydia or pelvic inflammatory
disease receive additional doxycycline, 100 mgm by mouth twice daily for
six additional days.
Patients allergic to tetracyclines are not given prophylactic
antibiotics.
Ergotrate 0.2 mgm by mouth four times daily for three days is dispensed
to each patient.
Pitocin 10 IU intramuscularly is administered upon removal of the
Dilapan on Day 3.
Rhogam intramuscularly is provided to all Rh negative patients on Day 3.
Ibuprofen orally is provided liberally at a rate of 100 mgm per hour
from Day 1 onward.
Patients with severe cramps with Dilapan dilation are provided Phenergan
25 mgm suppositories rectally every 4 hours as needed.
Rare patients require Synalogos DC in order to sleep during Dilapan
dilation.
Patients with a hemoglobin less than 10 g/dl prior to surgery receive
packed red blood cell transfusions.
Follow Up
All patients are given a 24 hour physician's number to call in case of a
problem or concern.
At least three attempts to contact each patient by phone one week after
surgery are made by the office staff.
All patients are asked to return for check-up three weeks following
their surgery.
Third Trimester
The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a conceptually similar
technique. He adds additional changes of Dilapan and/or lamineria in the
48 hour dilation period. Coupled with other refinements and a slower
operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more. 10
Summary
In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for
achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in
the third trimester.
Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method
that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia
Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree of surgical
skill, and may not be appropriate for a few patients.
Footnotes
1 Cates, W. Jr., Schulz, K.F., Grimes D.A., et al: The Effects of Delay
and Method of Choice on the Risk of Abortion Morbidity, Family Planning
Perspectives, 9:266, 1977.
2 Borell, U., Emberey, M.P., Bygdeman, M., et al: Midtrimester Abortion
by Dilation and Evacuation (Letter), American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 131:232, 1978.
3 Centers for Disease Control: Abortion Surveillance 1978, p. 30,
November, 1980.
4 Grimes, D.A., Cates, W. Jr. (Berger, G.S., et al, ed): Dilation and
Evacuation, Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of
Experience, Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 132.
5 Ibid, p. 121-128.
6 Ibid, p. 121.
7 Kerenyi, T.D. (Bergen, G.S., et al, ed): Hypertonic Saline Instillation,
Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of Experience,
Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 79.
8 Hanson, M.S. (Zatuchni, G. I., et al, ed): Midtrimester Abortion:
Dilation and Extraction Preceded by Laminaria, Pregnancy Termination
Procedures, Safety and New Developments, Hagerstown, Harper and Row,
1979, p. 192.
9 Hern, W.M., Abortion Practice, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1990, p.
127, 144-6.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
05 Feb 2005 12:18:11 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1fk7$51b$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Sangfroid <jung@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
"partial birth abortions" are a late second trimester procedure, not a
full term procedure. Idiot!
cite please
========================================================================
Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion
Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar,
thanks for the cite. except it doesn't prove your claim, and i refute it
below.
you said "partial birth abortions are a late second trimester procedure, not
a full term procedure"
when in fact PBA's can be (and are) performed in both the 2nd and 3rd
trimesters as i prove with my cite
your cite is talking about specifically "D&X" and limiting those to 2nd
trimester
classic D&E (note the distinction can and are performed in the 3rd trimester
as well)
and D&E is a partial birth abortion, and is even referenced as such. my
cite proves this.
here is a quote and a relevant cite.
i expect an apology since you called me an "idiot" for claiming that partial
birth abortions can and are performed in the third trimester. you were
wrong. they are and can be. i was right.
quote follows:
Third Trimester Abortion Methods (26 - 40 weeks of pregnancy)
Intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion)
In this procedure, the physician pulls the fetus feet-first out of the
uterus into the birth canal, except for the head which is kept lodged just
inside the uterus.
The base of the fetus's skull is punctured with a sharp instrument such as a
long scissors or pointed metal tube.
A catheter is inserted into the wound and removes the fetus's brain with a
powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, and allows for
the expulsion of the fetus.
Possible complications
Risks are similar to childbirth
Uterine infection
Blood clots to heart, lungs and brain
Heavy bleeding
High blood pressure
Reaction to anesthesia
Infertility
and here's the cite
http://www.state.sd.us/applications/ph17abortioninfo/inlet/Abort.htm#Third
thanks in advance for the apology
whit
September 13, 1992
(BY MARTIN HASKELL, M.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in
that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are
inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.
Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an
adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and
Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's
office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients
20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of
complications.
Background D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation
methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This happened
in part because of lack of hospital facilities allowing second trimester
abortions in some geographic areas, in part because surgeons needed a
`right now' solution to complete
suction abortions inadvertently started in the second trimester and in
part to provide a means of early second trimester abortion to avoid
necessary delays for instillation methods. 1
The North Carolina Conference in 1978 established D&E as the preferred
method for early second trimester abortions in the U.S. 2 , 3 , 4
Footnotes at end of article.
Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus
with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated
cervix. 5
However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to
be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of
development.
Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an
induction method. 6 , 7 , 8
Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been described at
previous NAF meetings. The first relies on sterile urea intra-amniotic
infusion to cause fetal demise and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues
prior to surgery. 9
The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours prior to
surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and ensuing autolysis
soften the tissues. There are attendant risks of infection with this
method.
In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely upon some
means to induce early fetal demise to soften the fetal tissues making
dismemberment easier.
Patient Selection the author routinely performs this procedure on all
patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author
performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
The author refers for induction patients falling into the following
categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than
20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks;
patients 26 weeks and over.
Description of Dilation and Extraction Method
Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be
described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound
visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull
decompression; removal; c | | | | | | | | |
