| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2006 11:34:58 PM |
| Object: |
PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
by Celeste McGovern
Aborted fetuses are being dissected alive, harvested and sold in pieces to
fuel a vast research enterprise
The doctor walked into the lab and set a steel pan on the table. "Got you
some good specimens," he said. "Twins." The technician looked down at a pair
of perfectly formed 24-week-old fetuses moving and gasping for air. Except
for a few nicks from the surgical tongs that had pulled them out, they
seemed uninjured. "There's something wrong here," the technician stammered.
"They are moving. I don't do this. That's not in my contract." She watched
the doctor take a bottle of sterile water and fill the pan until the water
ran up over the babies' mouths and noses. Then she left the room. "I would
not watch those fetuses moving," she recalls. "That's when I decided it was
wrong."
The technician uses the pseudonym "Kelly." She has her back to the camera,
she wears a wig, and her voice is electronically modified because she says
she fears for her life. Until a few months ago Kelly worked for a Maryland
company called the Anatomic Gift Foundation. Her job was to procure fetal
tissue for research. She worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic that was also
a member of the National Abortion Federation. Her interview appears on the
May issue of "Life Talk" video magazine-the first of a monthly series of
videos released by Life Dynamics Inc., a renegade pro-life group based in
Denton, Texas, that admits to having spies work in abortion clinics to
uncover their most closely guarded secrets.
This week the group is releasing the documentary evidence it has gathered
since Kelly approached them nearly two years ago. Life Dynamics has dozens
of order forms from researchers requesting fetal parts, price lists for
fetal organs and tissue, and donation consent forms for women undergoing
abortion. It offers a gruesome glimpse at a vast trade in human tissue from
babies that are aborted, and sometimes vivisected, to satiate the exploding
multibillion-dollar biotechnology industry.
The traffic in tissue flows worldwide into respected tax- funded
laboratories, including Canadian ones. The research itself is usually for
laudable goals, from helping prenatal infants survive to curing Parkinson's
disease. But the trade, worth billions, raises myriad ethical questions: Are
some humans being killed to benefit others? Are women being exploited to
support tissue collection? Who is profiting from the trade? And what are the
social implications of its existence?
Once the stuff of cheap science-fiction, human clones, artificial wombs and
human-animal cross-species are all now serious possibilities. Sexless
procreation is already a reality with in vitro fertilization. Selective
breeding of human beings is commonplace thanks to embryo screening and
"genetic terminations." And human-human brain cell transplants are
government-funded. All of these endeavours rely on aborted fetuses.
Scientists have used fetal tissue in research since at least the 1930s, says
Pittsburgh researcher Suzanne Rini, author of the 1993 book Beyond Abortion:
A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation. Thirty years ago, as abortion laws
were relaxing and some second- and third-trimester abortions were performed
by hysterotomy (essentially a Caesarean section), experiments on live
fetuses were cutting-edge technology. Geoffrey Chamberlain received a
professional award for research (outlined in the March 1968 issue of The
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) in which he took live aborted
fetuses, attached them to an artificial placenta, perfused them to see if he
could make them live, and then pulled the plug on them. No one objected.
It was shortly after that article, Mrs. Rini notes, that the Cambridge
Evening Post featured a story on Lawrence Lawn, a physician who did manage
to provoke controversy when it was learned that he was procuring live
fetuses from a private abortion clinic. "We are simply allowing something
which is destined for the incinerator to benefit mankind," he said, obliging
a photographer with a picture of himself standing next to a dying fetus
suspended in a perfusion tank. Yet even Dr. Lawn believed there were limits.
"Of course we would not dream of experimenting with a viable child. We would
not consider that to be right." With the decriminalization of abortion in
the 1970s, fetal research became, in the words one ethicist, a "golden
opportunity" for researchers. The public almost never heard about fetal
experimentation. But by the 1980s, some of the most macabre research was
being publicly funded. Mrs. Rini catalogues experiments ranging from the
perfusion of impaled beating fetal hearts with adrenaline and caffeine to
eye-tissue transplants and skin grafting. Dr. Bernard Gondos of the
University of Connecticut at Farmington, whose research on fetal gonads
described most of his specimens as "previable dead," lamented having to
import fetuses from outside the United States. Dr. Karen Holbrook of the
University of Washington received a $239,740 grant in 1984-85 for her work
on "Fetal Skin Biology" using first-, second- and third-trimester human
fetuses. She told Mrs. Rini: "Hopefully they are not born alive. It's better
to avoid that. The skin is taken after fetal demise." Asked if the skin
diseases she was trying to diagnose prenatally were fatal, Dr. Holbrook
replied, "No, but they ruin your life."
By the 1980s transplants had become entrenched, and fetal tissue, which
grows quickly and is less likely to trigger an immune reaction in a host,
became even more coveted. Fetal tissue transplants became part of efforts to
treat diabetes, Huntington's disease, blindness, spinal cord injury,
Parkinson's disease, leukemia and more. In 1988, U.S. president George Bush
banned federal funding of fetal human-to-human transplants. This move was
widely mistaken for a ban on all fetal tissue research; in fact, most such
research carried on unimpeded. In any case, Bill Clinton's first official
act as president in 1993 was to strike down the ban. People were demanding
to be "treated" with fetuses. California lawyer Joan Samuelson had founded
the Parkinson Action Network (PAN) in 1990 to lobby for an end to the
moratorium. "Will lifting the ban save us in time?" she asked when it was
abolished, and she began lobbying for an accelerated grant review process
for fetal-tissue transplant research.
Transplants of brain tissue from young fetuses (usually aborted at less than
10 weeks) into Parkinson's sufferers have attracted the most public
attention to fetal tissue research. In 1990 the results of Olle Lindvall's
research team's transplants into four Swedish patients were hailed as
"promising" because one recipient appeared to have benefited remarkably. The
other patients were not monitored long enough to determine the grafts'
effects.
Neuroscientists presenting findings at the XIII International Congress on
Parkinson's Disease in Vancouver last month sounded optimistic, but their
data was not the knockout blow Parkinson's researchers have been hoping for.
Thomas Freeman of the University of South Florida reported that 360 patients
have received human tissue transplants in 17 centres worldwide to date. But
the variables researchers use to evaluate success differ so widely as to be
incomparable, so he focused on the results of his own "open trial" on six
patients, which he admitted was open to placebo effects and observer bias.
The only fetal tissue transplant study to be performed with a control group
so far was published in April by Curt Freed of the University of Colorado
and Stanley Fahn of Columbia Presbyterian. They followed two sets of
patients: those who actually received neural fetal cells and those who had
their heads opened for a sham surgery in an attempt to eliminate the placebo
effect. Although the Medical Post headlined the research story "Parkinson's
progress," and the New York Times proclaimed, "Hints of success in fetal
cell transplants," Dr. Paul Ranalli, a professor of neurology at the
University of Toronto, calls the research "hugely unimpressive." The only
benefits were bestowed on patients under age 60, he notes, and the vast
majority of Parkinson's patients are senior citizens. Even in those cases,
he adds, "a magnifying glass is required to discern any functional benefit."
What is more, Dr. Fahn told the Vancouver congress that he was disturbed by
an unexpected outcome of the trial: facial "runaway dyskinesias"
(involuntary muscle movements) which were particularly severe in the younger
patients. Other researchers have noted similar findings, says Dr. Freeman.
As with drugs, there could be a dose at which fetal cells "may be harmful,"
he said.
Procedures on more Parkinson's patients will help clarify these findings.
Dr. Freeman told the attendees that Canada is leading the way in these
experiments, primarily at the lab of Dr. Ivar Mendez at Dalhousie University
in Halifax. Dr. Mendez, who declined an interview last week, received a
$90,042 grant from the Medical Research Council of Canada for 1999-2000. His
transplant data is anticipated soon.
At the advent of the new millennium it is "pleuripotent" embryonic stem
cells that are at the forefront of fetal tissue research. Ethicists are
already distinguishing between using human embryos "left over" from in vitro
fertilization and humans created specifically for research. "Farmed" embryos
are capable of differentiating into many types of tissue and are being
hailed as new sources for whole organs for donation, and for human clones.
As bright as all the research may sound, others discern a darker side. There
is no law on fetal tissue collection-only guidelines. Researchers are free
to hold to them or ignore them. And where laws do exist-such as the ones
against infanticide and the sale of human tissue-there are ways around them,
and they are sometimes broken outright.
Kelly explains that the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic she was working
in received a service fee from the Anatomic Gift Foundation for its tissue
"donations." "We were never employees of the abortion clinic," she explains.
"We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go
in...[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list
each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and
universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular
patient charts-we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies.
These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers
for the best value that we could sell for." Probably only 10% of fetuses
were ruled out for anomalies, she adds. The rest were "healthy donors."
Fetuses ranged in age from seven weeks to 30 weeks and beyond. Typically,
Kelly harvested tissue from 30 to 40 "late" fetuses each week. "We were
taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood...even
blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins," she says.
Researchers used their own shipping firms-"UPS, Fedex or a special courier,"
she adds. "We would take it in a box and put it on as regular cargo.
Sometimes it would be an intact fetus or it might be a batch of eyes or 30
to 40 livers going out that day, or thymuses. Whatever it was, there were
mass quantities of it going out." To support this claim, Life Dynamics
provides copies of dozens of order forms for fetal parts from North American
researchers. They contain names of researchers, universities and
pharmaceutical companies, day and evening telephone numbers, courier account
numbers, the type of tissue requested, preferred gestational age of the
fetus, and other details.
A sample, from a scientist studying the "Biochemical Characterization of
human type X Collagen," requests "Whole intact leg, include entire hip
joint, 22-24 weeks gest." The extractor is directed to "dissect by cutting
through symphasis pubis and include whole Illium [hip joint]. To be removed
from fetal cadaver within 10 minutes."
One order form carries the name of the University of British Columbia's Dr.
Vanugram Venkatesh alongside a request for an international Fedex shipment
of "16-24 week lungs (trachea not required)" to study "molecular mechanisms
of fluid reabsorption in human fetal lung." "Significance: Respiratory
Distress Syndrome...a major cause of death in premature infants." The memo
adds: "Bill our account."
Contacted last week at his Vancouver office, Dr. Vankatesh said that he did
do research on immature lungs two years ago, with a Medical Research Council
grant, at the B.C. Children's Hospital. But he added, "I don't do that
anymore." Asked if he used human tissue, he replied, "Yeah," then changed
his mind. "Well, we were doing genetics mainly...Where are you getting your
information? We were using cell lines." Asked if he had ever ordered fetal
lungs from the U.S., he said, "I have to go," and hung up abruptly.
"These researchers don't want to see the whole baby," says Life Dynamics'
Dzintra Tuttle. "That's gruesome. That would freak them out. They think they
're about higher medicine that is serving a cause-not about dead babies." On
their video, Life Dynamics asks Kelly if the abortionist at the clinic ever
deliberately altered procedure to procure tissue. "Yes," she replies. "All
the limbs, the arms, the head, the chest cavity were never invaded. They
were all completely intact. Sometimes, the fetus appeared to be dead, but
when you'd open up the chest cavity you'd see the heart beating."
The clinic used the partial-birth abortion technique for later pregnancies:
the doctor grasps hold of a fetus leg with tongs and pulls the entire baby,
except for the head, feet-first and face down out of the mother. Then he
punctures the base of the skull with scissors, inserts a cannula to suck out
the brain, and slides the head out. It is a three-day procedure requiring
that women be inserted with laminaria, seaweed cervix dilators, beforehand.
Were women ever coerced into the procedure? Kelly says that sometimes,
before the final surgery, on the third day "you could blatantly hear them in
the halls saying they wanted to change their minds." But they were sedated,
in what Kelly calls a "Nyquil nap," which made it difficult to protest.
Sometimes the IV was turned up; in any case, the woman always had the
abortion.
Routinely, the women would go into labour before the final surgery. "They
were coming out alive," says Kelly. Aside from the incident with the twins,
she says, there were three to four live births in a typical two-week period.
"The doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and
basically beat the fetus until it was dead."
As incredible as Kelly's testimony seems, other sources corroborate it. Eric
Harrah worked in the abortion industry for 11 years, leaving it 18 months
ago. He managed and owned or partially owned 26 American abortion clinics.
Live births, he tells Life Dynamics, were the industry's "dirty little
secret." "It was always very disturbing, so the doctor would try to conceal
it from the rest of the staff," he says, but one incident is hard for him to
forget.
The woman in question was 26 weeks pregnant. She had laminaria inserted,
signed paperwork agreeing not to call anyone but the clinic if she went into
labour, and was sent to a motel up the road to await her procedure the next
day. She was brought to the clinic in the middle of the night, carrying her
fetus in a white cotton hotel towel.
"I was in the scrub room when I saw the towel move," says Mr. Harrah. "A
nurse said, 'Eric, you're just tired. It's three in the morning.' Then we
both looked and a little baby's arm raised up out of the towel and was
moving like a newborn baby. I screamed and ran out. The doctor came in and
closed the door and when we went back in to process the baby out of the
clinic into the lab, [the baby] had a puncture wound in his chest."
Evidence of the demand for late-term fetal tissue can be corroborated apart
from Life Dynamics. The National Institutes for Health operate a Laboratory
for Embryology at the University of Washington in Seattle that runs a 24-
hour collection service at abortion clinics. An advertisement in the March
1994 NIH Guide still appears on the Internet, offering to "supply tissue
from normal or abnormal embryos and fetuses of desired gestational ages
between 40 days and term. Specimens are obtained within minutes of
passage... and immediately processed according to the requirements of
individual investigators...Specimens are shipped by overnight express."
Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, is now convinced that the
research demand for intact late-term fetal organs is the hidden truth behind
the partial-birth abortion controversy. In state after state this year,
partial- birth abortion bans written into state laws by legislatures have
been vehemently opposed by pro-choice groups and overturned by courts. "Why
do pro-aborts fight so hard to keep it?" asks Mr. Crutcher. "All it says is
you can't kill them by this method. It doesn't prevent them from getting any
other kind of abortion. This is about maximizing profits. First, you sell
the woman an abortion. Then you turn around and sell the dead baby you take
out of her. But you have to take it out whole or you don't have anything to
sell."
"It has nothing to do with the woman's right to choose or with protecting
the sanctity of the right of abortion," agrees Mr. Harrah. "It has
everything to do with protecting the sanctity of the fullness of the
abortionist's wallet. This is the only type of abortion procedure that doesn
't cost them to get rid of the dead baby. They actually make money."
Apart from abortionists and the wholesalers who traffic in aborted baby
parts (see story, page 34), who stands to profit from this fetal research?
Of the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring it, Mr. Crutcher says: "I don't
think there's one that's not involved." He surmises they are investing in
the future. Baby boomers are aging, and about to start falling apart. A
practical treatment for Parkinson's would be lucrative. "Just look at
Viagra," says Mr. Crutcher. (In Canada alone, the little blue impotence pill
sold 20,600 prescriptions worth $1.55 million in its first week on the
market) "That's just a hint of the fortunes awaiting drug manufacturers
pandering to boomers' quest for youth. They're the wealthiest generation in
the history of the world. And also the most narcissistic. They want to live
forever." And fetuses are the new human scrap heap. Says Mr. Crutcher: "We'
re going to kill the very young to treat the very old." Perhaps, but Mrs.
Rini offers hope of a wrinkle in the plan. "Does the fetus' aliveness, which
is coveted by researchers, and ability to sponsor life for others,
ironically but actually prove the fetus' own life?" she writes. She cites
ethicist Paul Ramsey: "Far from abortion settling the question of fetal
research, it could be that sober reflection on the use of the human fetus in
research could unsettle the abortion issue."
Steven Bamforth is a geneticist who operates a fetal tissue repository at
the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton. He and his researchers have
the difficult task of sorting through 10- to 12-week fetal remains from
abortion clinics in Edmonton and Winnipeg, dissecting recognizable body
parts for hearts and eyes, extracting messenger ribonucleic acid and
shipping it to other geneticists at the Universities of Toronto and British
Columbia. "The humanity is always before us," Dr. Bamforth told this
magazine last year. "If society said this research is not acceptable, of
course, we would immediately desist. It's not something that I do happily."
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 05:53:36 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded. You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
and claim they are refutations, and engage in every possible form of
equivocation. You are so far from reality it's laughable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 11:15:56 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded.
Nope.
You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
Which is your whiny way of saying that I point out all of the gaping
flaws in your propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 06:31:11 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440333cc$0$58128$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded.
Nope.
You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
Which is your
Which is your way of pretending to refute my arguments. I say something
applies to human beings, your response is that it doesn't apply to corpses.
It's quibbling sophistry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 07:00:09 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440333cc$0$58128$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded.
Nope.
You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
Which is your
Which is your way of
refuting your crap, self-serving propaganda, sophistry, and outright
lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 05:35:15 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4403a099$0$58035$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440333cc$0$58128$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded.
Nope.
You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
Which is your
Which is your way of
Attempting but failing miserably to refute anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 10:42:40 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4403a099$0$58035$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440333cc$0$58128$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Your standard tactic is to make a claim that
contradicts known facts
Your standard tactic is to refer to your perceptions as "known facts"
You're a liar. I cite authorities. You make up your own definitions.
You're deluded.
Nope.
You spin, nitpick, dissemble, look for possible exceptions
Which is your
Which is your way of
Attempting
To get away with outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 06:47:09 PM |
|
|
defining some of his most effective arguments, In article
<12076efa9ok3kd5@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
It's quibbling sophistry.
indeed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 05:34:08 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0BFC9C.19470927022006@individual.net...
defining some of his most effective arguments, In article
<12076efa9ok3kd5@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
It's quibbling sophistry.
indeed
You don't even do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 07:40:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1208d9g7ee84o51@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0BFC9C.19470927022006@individual.net...
defining some of his most effective arguments, In article
<12076efa9ok3kd5@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
It's quibbling sophistry.
indeed
You don't
nor do any of those you have run away from
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 12:50:59 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote
Legitimate supporters of choice, or any
issue, *cringe* that people like you, BOB, and Ray Fischer are
involved, ostensibly "on their side".
Yes Douche, we pro-choice advocates fight for the good cause of
protecting
the liberty and personal freedom for women faced with unwanted or
medically
impaired pregnancies. It's also called bodily autonomy.
No you don't. All you do is engage in mindless verbal harrassment of
people
who dispute your arguments or disagree with your points of view.
"Verbal harrassment" should be read as "refuting wild claims with the
facts."
Should be, but it isn't, it's name-calling, personal insults, and imputing
of motives, sometimes mixed with personal perspective and opinions, rarely
including facts.
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
What goes around comes around, hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 07:29:31 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote
Legitimate supporters of choice, or any
issue, *cringe* that people like you, BOB, and Ray Fischer are
involved, ostensibly "on their side".
Yes Douche, we pro-choice advocates fight for the good cause of
protecting
the liberty and personal freedom for women faced with unwanted or
medically
impaired pregnancies. It's also called bodily autonomy.
No you don't. All you do is engage in mindless verbal harrassment of
people
who dispute your arguments or disagree with your points of view.
"Verbal harrassment" should be read as "refuting wild claims with the
facts."
Should be, but it isn't, it's name-calling, personal insults, and imputing
of motives, sometimes mixed with personal perspective and opinions, rarely
including facts.
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
I call a spade a spade. Your argument ARE quibbles and sophistry and verbal
abuse, imputing motives, opinions and perspectives based on selective facts,
mostly devoid of useful content.. If you don't want me to tell you about it
stop playing games and act like a man.
What goes around comes around, hypocrite.
Yes, and around and around and around.... that's you, quibbling,
equivocating sophist liar Ray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 08:00:49 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote
Legitimate supporters of choice, or any
issue, *cringe* that people like you, BOB, and Ray Fischer are
involved, ostensibly "on their side".
Yes Douche, we pro-choice advocates fight for the good cause of
protecting
the liberty and personal freedom for women faced with unwanted or
medically
impaired pregnancies. It's also called bodily autonomy.
No you don't. All you do is engage in mindless verbal harrassment of
people
who dispute your arguments or disagree with your points of view.
"Verbal harrassment" should be read as "refuting wild claims with the
facts."
Should be, but it isn't, it's name-calling, personal insults, and imputing
of motives, sometimes mixed with personal perspective and opinions, rarely
including facts.
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
I call a spade a spade.
You lie about people as an excuse to run away from arguments that you
can't refute.
Your argument ARE quibbles and sophistry and verbal
Prove it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 05:54:43 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
Your argument ARE quibbles and sophistry and verbal
Prove it.
I do, every time. There's another disinformation tactic, keep demanding more
proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 11:16:33 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
Your argument ARE quibbles and sophistry and verbal
Prove it.
I do, every time.
Obviously not, and not this time.
You whined and ran away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 09:50:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1204lfr9fga9m72@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
I call a spade a spade.
another anti-choice, misogynist statement from a creep who thinks
women are no better than breeding stock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 05:56:37 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-7D6D27.10502527022006@individual.net...
In article <1204lfr9fga9m72@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
I call a spade a spade.
another anti-choice, misogynist statement from a creep who thinks
women are no better than breeding stock.
I'm going to leave you to talk to yourself james. I'll check in on you from
time to time to see if you come up with anything worth responding to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 05:59:38 PM |
|
|
In article <12074dnk3m9cobc@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-7D6D27.10502527022006@individual.net...
In article <1204lfr9fga9m72@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
What's YOUR favorite tactic? Claim "sophistry", accuse people of
"quibbling" (the fact are SUCH a nuisance, aren't they?), ignore
the argument and whine that it's not valid.
I call a spade a spade.
another anti-choice, misogynist statement from a creep who thinks
women are no better than breeding stock.
I'm going to leave you to talk to yourself james.
you do seem to run away quite often.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
25 Feb 2006 06:41:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1201sipqcgtpl89@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote
In article <120005hejam7688@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0E6023.20553924022006@individual.net...
In article <11vvdv8a2s2beb6@news.supernews.com>,
inferior "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> "Ditch's" superior
i know.
You
yes,
Yes,
you are a deluded,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
21 Feb 2006 08:14:02 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
the LUNACY of Celeste McGovern:
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition. There is no morally significant difference
between a child before it is born and right after, and very little
physical
difference.
It's only a small matter of geography.
That's like saying that rape is "only a small matter of geography".
A child born pre-maturely at 8 months
and a child murdered by abortion
The usual pro-liar insanity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
23 Feb 2006 03:43:53 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
the LUNACY of Celeste McGovern:
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition. There is no morally significant difference
between a child before it is born and right after, and very little
physical
difference.
It's only a small matter of geography.
That's like saying that rape is "only a small matter of geography".
It's nothing like that. His analogy was pretty weak, yours is senseless.
A child born pre-maturely at 8 months
and a child murdered by abortion
The usual pro-liar insanity.
Not an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 12:06:08 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
the LUNACY of Celeste McGovern:
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition. There is no morally significant difference
between a child before it is born and right after, and very little
physical
difference.
It's only a small matter of geography.
That's like saying that rape is "only a small matter of geography".
It's nothing like that.
Of course it is. The only thing that makes rape a felony is the
location of the man's penis. It's only a matter of "geography".
A child born pre-maturely at 8 months
and a child murdered by abortion
The usual pro-liar insanity.
Not an argument.
Nor was your worthless whining.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 07:34:15 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4401ee10$0$58082$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
the LUNACY of Celeste McGovern:
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition. There is no morally significant difference
between a child before it is born and right after, and very little
physical
difference.
It's only a small matter of geography.
That's like saying that rape is "only a small matter of geography".
It's nothing like that.
Of course it is. The only thing that makes rape a felony is the
location of the man's penis. It's only a matter of "geography".
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act. Geography is a
STUPID reference.
A child born pre-maturely at 8 months
and a child murdered by abortion
The usual pro-liar insanity.
Not an argument.
Nor was your
My comment was valid, "The usual pro-liar insanity." is not a valid
argument, and you rely heavily on such insipid remarks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
26 Feb 2006 08:24:05 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
the LUNACY of Celeste McGovern:
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition. There is no morally significant difference
between a child before it is born and right after, and very little
physical
difference.
It's only a small matter of geography.
That's like saying that rape is "only a small matter of geography".
It's nothing like that.
Of course it is. The only thing that makes rape a felony is the
location of the man's penis. It's only a matter of "geography".
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act.
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
A child born pre-maturely at 8 months
and a child murdered by abortion
The usual pro-liar insanity.
Not an argument.
Nor was your
My comment was
pro-liar evil.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 06:26:33 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act.
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
You dope, rape means to *force* someone into sex against their will. "Force"
is violence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act.
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
You dope, rape means to *force* someone into sex against their will. "Force"
is violence.
Trying to redefine words again, pro-liar?
rape:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried
out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of
a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or
incapable of valid consent
Rape is sex without consent. Have sex with an unconscious woman and
it's rape with no force. Intimidate a woman with threats and it's
rape with no violence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 05:29:17 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440383c8$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act.
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
You dope, rape means to *force* someone into sex against their will.
"Force"
is violence.
Trying to redefine words again, pro-liar?
No, why are you?
rape:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried
out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of
a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or
incapable of valid consent
forcible = violent
"without consent" = violence
Rape is sex without consent. Have sex with an unconscious woman and
it's rape with no force. Intimidate a woman with threats and it's
rape with no violence.
Threats or intimidation = violence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
28 Feb 2006 11:09:53 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440383c8$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
What makes rape a crime is the fact that it is a violent act.
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
You dope, rape means to *force* someone into sex against their will.
"Force"
is violence.
Trying to redefine words again, pro-liar?
No, why are you?
rape:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried
out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of
a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or
incapable of valid consent
forcible = violent
"without consent" = violence
That's a lie.
Rape is sex without consent. Have sex with an unconscious woman and
it's rape with no force. Intimidate a woman with threats and it's
rape with no violence.
Threats or intimidation = violence.
Pay attention, moron: "Have sex with an unconscious woman and it's
rape with no force."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
27 Feb 2006 12:00:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:24:05 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Wrong yet again, idiot. Rape is NOT defined to be a violent act.
Violence has nothing to do with it.
[snip]
Personally, violent or no, I for one hope that rape be defined as
an illegal act; fortunately, in most civilized locales, it is.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry (Pro-liar evil) |
21 Feb 2006 02:50:56 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> blurted out
Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry
No such thing. All BABIES have been BORN.
Stop arguing by definition.
97% on the irony meter.
There is no morally significant difference
"Stop arguing by definition."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- IMPEACH Perfidious Bush... NOW!!" |
|
| Title: Re: PSA: Secrets of the Dead Baby Industry |
21 Feb 2006 06:55:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:34:54 -0800,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
There is ... very little physical difference ... between a
[fetus] before it is born and [a baby] right after.
Dr. Bruce Forest knows better! ---
The IMMEDIATE Changes that Occur at BIRTH are
Nothing Short of Phenomenal !
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"There are enormous changes in a fetus at birth, and frankly,
it looks a little ignorant to say there are no discernible changes
at birth" [as some have claimed].
"Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological
change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and oxygen
come from. These profound changes are a reason that I consider
birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing 'personhood.'
"For example, the most obvious change is that the newborn
receives oxygen from the environment. Do you have any idea of
the massive changes necessary to accomplish this? Let me just
address circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound
respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I think you'll
regard birth as even more miraculous when you understand what
an amazing physiological event it is, and what awesome changes
happen at that moment!
"At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal
hemodynamics; (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a huge,
though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a rise in plasma
C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate regular breathing.
"With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal chest
cavity) pressure remains low; after distention of the airways,
assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure quickly rises to that
of an adult... (-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure in the pulmonary artery
falls by 50%, but pressure in the atrium immediately doubles or
even triples.
"In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the
capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes
most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to rush
into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in the fetus
called the ductus arteriosus. At birth, the first expansion of the
lungs forces all the blood in the right ventricle into the pulmonary
artery for the first time. Furthermore, increased systemic arterial
pressure actually reverses the flow through the ductus arteri-
osus! Now, neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta
to the low pressure pulmonary artery.
"The massive increase in the left atrial pressure would,
before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the right
heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An oval opening
in the atrial septum that we all have before birth.) However, (and
this is SO cool...) the anatomical configuration of the foramen is
such that a valvelike fold in the left atrial wall automatically
closes the foramen (hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed
blood. That always amazes me.
"The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with
closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some
minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult phase
begins.
"Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....
Umbilical vein... Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to fetus
Ductus venosus... Conducts about half the blood from the
umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus bypassing
the liver
Foramen Ovale... Conveys large proportion of blood entering
the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the atrial
septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the lungs
Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary
artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs
Umbilical arteries... Carry blood from the internal iliac arteries
to the placenta for reoxygenation
Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels constrict. The
arteries close first, and if the umbilical cord is not clamped or
severed for a minute or so, blood continues to flow from the
placenta to the newborn through the umbilical vein, adding to
the newborn's blood volume.
The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in the adult
as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood to the urinary
bladder. The more distal portions become solid cords (lateral
umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical vein becomes the cordlike
ligamentum teres that extends from the umbilicus to the liver
in an adult. Similarly, the ductus venosus constricts shortly after
birth and is represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamen-
tum venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of
the liver.
So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate
newborn and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many
more minor ones... ALL abruptly changing at the moment of
birth:
(1) arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria;
(2) the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood
into the right atrium, where it goes into the right
ventricle, and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries,
and finally to the pulmonary capillary bed , and ;
(3) the aorta now carries only oxygenated blood from the
left heart via the pulmonary veins for distribution to the
rest of the body. The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but
what enormous changes have taken place in a few
short seconds!
So, I'd appreciate if you didn't say that the immediate newborn
and term fetus are almost identical, because they just aren't. The
digestive changes alone would be ten times the length of this very
basic circulatory primer, and the respiratory chemistry changes at
the instant of birth could fill a book.
-- Bruce Forest <bfor...@interramp.com> on 09-05-1996.
* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
FOOTNOTE, by Craig Chilton ---
There is NOTHING in the Bible (or anywhere else that I know
of) that documents any sort of "specialness" to the simple, mechan-
ical act of sperm and ova merging (i.e., fertilization. Yet, for their
own arcane reasons, Anti-Choicers desperately cling to THAT
POINT from which to "defend" entities of the human reproductive
process. Which is both strange and hypocritical, considering the
fact that all the DNA that is found in those last 3 stages was
ALREADY present in the first two, when summed. AND... Stage
One of the reproductive process (sperm and ova) is comprised of
entities which, JUST like the later stages, are human, alive, and
POTENTIAL people. To be sure, SOME physiological changes
occur at the merging of sperm and ova to form a zygote, but those
PALE by coparison to the PROFOUND changes that occur at
BIRTH.
All things considered, it really is no wonder that the Bible
clearly accords personhood at BIRTH, and never defends the
non-sentient POTENTIAL people of the reproductive process.
And never once says so much as one word against abortion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
