PDA

View Full Version : Another Brilliant Idea from PlannedBarrenHood



Nineveh
August 10th, 2004, 08:14 AM
A pro-life group is criticizing Planned Parenthood for selling a 6-inch ruler that asks, "Does Size Matter?"

According to American Life League's STOPP International, the ruler directs children to Teenwire, a Planned Parenthood website filled with "graphic sexual content."

"Planned Parenthood's facade that it is an organization that helps women and children continues to crumble as more people discover their offensive products, which trivialize sexuality and directly target children," said Jim Sedlak, executive director of STOPP International.cite (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=%3E%3E%3ECulture%3E%3E%3Earch ive%3E%3E%3E200408%3E%3E%3ECUL20040806b.html)

T-shirts, sex-ed "workshops" for kids, and now these rulers. I wonder how far plannedbarrenhood will sink in their perverseness before America will no longer tolerate it.

Poly
August 10th, 2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

T-shirts, sex-ed "workshops" for kids, and now these rulers. I wonder how far plannedbarrenhood will sink in their perverseness before America will no longer tolerate it.
Unfortunately, I'm thinking they still have a ways to go.

Nineveh
August 10th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Yeah, it's been what? 30 years they have hidden murder behind closed doors and gotten away with it, but their evil hearts are seeming to have a harder time of late not seeping into the mainstream. Maybe the folks who never gave it much thought, might now they can plainly see what ideas come from a murderous heart ....

Sozo
August 10th, 2004, 05:14 PM
I think it is obvious that Planned Parenthood's plan is to promote sex among America's youth; the purpose being, of course, is to improve their marketing efforts and increase revenue through abortion. If kids don't get pregnant, then Planned Parenthood loses a great deal of operating capital. Murder is a profitable business, so promoting promiscuity builds a much larger customer base.

Free-Agent Smith
August 10th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

T-shirts, sex-ed "workshops" for kids, and now these rulers. I wonder how far plannedbarrenhood will sink in their perverseness before America will no longer tolerate it.

I'm guessing that PP will also start promoting "metrosexual" lifestyles too.

For some unknown reason I get the idea that PP is helping making the men of the U.S. more effeminate also.

firechyld
August 10th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Uh... am I the only one who bothered to check out the "teenwire" site?

All I'm seeing is some decent answers to questions that teens ask, some news stories, and some fairly decent advice.

As for this...


I think it is obvious that Planned Parenthood's plan is to promote sex among America's youth; the purpose being, of course, is to improve their marketing efforts and increase revenue through abortion. If kids don't get pregnant, then Planned Parenthood loses a great deal of operating capital. Murder is a profitable business, so promoting promiscuity builds a much larger customer base.


... almost everything on that site is aimed at reducing pregnancy rates. There's some really sound contraception advice there.

You don't have to accept the site as a positive thing, but at least go to the trouble of looking at it before you condemn it.

Lighthouse
August 11th, 2004, 09:35 PM
I think the ruler is a dumb idea. Just plain dumb. The fact that it is obviously intended for that one thing is dumb.

Nineveh
August 12th, 2004, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

... almost everything on that site is aimed at reducing pregnancy rates.

Don't be obtuse. PlannedBarrenHood's "bread and butter" is the murder of unborn babies.

How is "measuring up" promoting chidren not have sex? Or do you believe virgin pregnancy is as prevalent as virgin STDs?

firechyld
August 12th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Don't be obtuse. PlannedBarrenHood's "bread and butter" is the murder of unborn babies.

How is "measuring up" promoting chidren not have sex? Or do you believe virgin pregnancy is as prevalent as virgin STDs?

Did you look at the site?? The information and advice is quite clear.

SOTK
August 12th, 2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Unfortunately, I'm thinking they still have a ways to go.

I agree with Poly. This is only the beginning. I see groups like this getting much worse! :down:

Skeptic
August 12th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

I think it is obvious that Planned Parenthood's plan is to promote sex among America's youth; ... No, its plan is to promote positive responsible sex among America's youth for those who choose to engage in it.

Responsible sexual behavior is not something that comes naturally to people. It must be learned.

Therefore, responsible sexual behavior should be taught to our youth.

Abstinence only programs do not teach responsible sexual behavior. They just teach abstinence from any sexual behavior. Information NEVER hurt anyone! It is the LACK of information that does harm. And trying to teach kids nothing but abstinence does more harm than good. Such programs are a failure and should be banned.

Lucky
August 12th, 2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

No, its plan is to promote positive responsible sex among America's youth for those who choose to engage in it.
"Responsible" or otherwise, that doesn't negate Sozo's statement. Planned Parenthood's plan is to promote sex among America's youth.

firechyld
August 12th, 2004, 11:31 PM
"Responsible" or otherwise, that doesn't negate Sozo's statement. Planned Parenthood's plan is to promote sex among America's youth.

They're not promoting sex. They're trying to equip kids with information that will help them if they choose to have sex.

You're too smart to honestly not be able to see the difference.

Lucky
August 12th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

They're not promoting sex. They're trying to equip kids with information that will help them if they choose to have sex.
Saying PP "equips kids with information that will help them if they choose to have sex" is just another way of saying PP "promotes positive responsible sex among America's youth for those who choose to engage in it." Is it really that hard to see the similarity? Maybe if you take your statement and ask "why?" Why are they equiping kids with such information? To promote sex! Call it "responsible" sex, call it "safe" sex.. it's still sex.

firechyld
August 12th, 2004, 11:55 PM
I've seen nothing that suggests they "promote" sex. They accept that it happens, and they try to minimise harm.

Acknowledging something is not promoting it... just like ignoring it doesn't actually make it go away.

Lighthouse
August 13th, 2004, 01:25 AM
Accepting that it happens is being apathetic to it. Instead of trying to lessen it they are continuing the epidemic by promoting "safe" ways to do it. There are groups out there promoting waiting until you are ready and responsible enough to handle the consequences of sex before you have sex. I know I am not ready to handle the consequences. I could not support a family. I could not pay medical bills that could arise as a result of even one night/time of pleasure. Sex isn't worth it. No matter how horny I am. So, instead of working to remedy the problem they are condoning it and therefore promoting it. Nobody even cares about love and true intimacy anymore, it seems.

I told my frined about these rulers and he said he wanted to buy one and get another ruler that's 12" long that has the word, "Yes" on it.

Nineveh
August 13th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

They're not promoting sex.

Pray tell, what is being "measured up" and why? On second thought, don't. Please, just continue on in your lack of wisdom.

"I told my frined about these rulers and he said he wanted to buy one and get another ruler that's 12" long that has the word, "Yes" on it."

Seems lighthouse's friend figured it out.

Skeptic
August 13th, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Accepting that it happens is being apathetic to it. Instead of trying to lessen it they are continuing the epidemic by promoting "safe" ways to do it. There is no "epidemic" of teen sex. Teens have been having sex since there have been teens. The epidemic is certain sexually transmitted diseases that are preventable by engaging in responsible sexual behavior.


There are groups out there promoting waiting until you are ready and responsible enough to handle the consequences of sex before you have sex. The efforts by fundies to stop teens from having any sex until they are married has been and will continue to be misguided and a failure.


I know I am not ready to handle the consequences. I could not support a family. I could not pay medical bills that could arise as a result of even one night/time of pleasure. Fear of such consequences will never be sufficient to stop most teens from having sex with each other. There is nothing wrong with teen sex. What is wrong or foolish is being irresponsible when engaging in it.


Sex isn't worth it. No matter how horny I am. You've made that choice, but don't force your choice on everyone else. If others think sex is worth it, then they have a right to take responsibility for their choice. And groups like PP help those who choose to have sex to do so responsibly.


So, instead of working to remedy the problem they are condoning it and therefore promoting it. The problem is not teen sex. It is irresponsible sexual behavior.


Nobody even cares about love and true intimacy anymore, it seems. Anymore? Love has never been a prerequisite for sex, and vice versa. This is fine. Young people can love and have true intimacy as well as adults. Adults can be as irresponsible sexually as can teens. Teaching responsible sexual behavior is a much more successful and ethical way to prevent unwanted consequences than teaching abstinence only.

Free-Agent Smith
August 13th, 2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I've seen nothing that suggests they "promote" sex. They accept that it happens, and they try to minimise harm.

Acknowledging something is not promoting it... just like ignoring it doesn't actually make it go away.

I know you don't live in the United States, so maybe you don't understand how our culture is working over here where PP is concerned.

They offer free STD testing, abortions, profilactics and pregnancy tests. These things, among others, might apply to both genders and for some have the option of anonymity for teens so that their parents don't have to be notified that thier children have contracted diseases, gotten pregnant or have been accompany to abortion proceedures.
In my area Planned Parenthood has quite a large clientele. Most of them are teen-agers that know their "problems" can be solved without unwanted attention.

Maybe I have given you more credit than I should have but I figured you could have easily seen how these circumstances promote additional people to Planned Parenthood's clientele.

Lighthouse
August 14th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

There is no "epidemic" of teen sex. Teens have been having sex since there have been teens. The epidemic is certain sexually transmitted diseases that are preventable by engaging in responsible sexual behavior.
I don't think teens are the only ones having irresponsible sex, but most of the adults who are being irresponsible started having sex as teens.


The efforts by fundies to stop teens from having any sex until they are married has been and will continue to be misguided and a failure.
Teens who are having sex quit having sex as teens, when they are no longer teens.


Fear of such consequences will never be sufficient to stop most teens from having sex with each other. There is nothing wrong with teen sex. What is wrong or foolish is being irresponsible when engaging in it.
These people are being irresponsible in having sex at all. They are not afraid of the consequences, and when they happen they blame the contraception, instead of themselves, because no one wnats to accept responsibility for anything. Have you ever heard of a woman telling a man that he got her pregnant? She blames him. Why do you think thta is?


You've made that choice, but don't force your choice on everyone else. If others think sex is worth it, then they have a right to take responsibility for their choice. And groups like PP help those who choose to have sex to do so responsibly.
I chose that way, because it is the most responsible choice, and ignorant liberals are just too dumb to see that. Sex is not worth any of the consequences, when one does not have the means to deal with them, especially when they are too immature to deal with them.


The problem is not teen sex. It is irresponsible sexual behavior.
No kidding. Sex, when you're not ready, is irresponsible...no matter what means you use to prevent pregnancy and disease.


Anymore? Love has never been a prerequisite for sex, and vice versa. This is fine. Young people can love and have true intimacy as well as adults.
Did I say that either was a prerequisite for the other? All I said was that sex without love or intimacy is nothing more than a meaningless act and is performed by selfish people who are only in it for themselves. People who don't care about the other person. People like you.


Adults can be as irresponsible sexually as can teens.
Are you some kind of detective? How did you figure this out? I know this. I've seen it. When did I say it was only about teens?


Teaching responsible sexual behavior is a much more successful and ethical way to prevent unwanted consequences than teaching abstinence only.
Responsible sexual behavior includes waiting until you are ready for the repercussions of the connection of sex, itself...and the other consequences.

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I've seen nothing that suggests they "promote" sex. They accept that it happens, and they try to minimise harm.

Acknowledging something is not promoting it... just like ignoring it doesn't actually make it go away.

This is such a bad argument. They do not simply 'acknowledge' it and they are not trying to minimize the harm.

Say I want to help young, image aware women who are bolemic or anorexic so that the dangers are 'minimized' in their 'lifestyle choice'. So I proceed to 'acknowledge' that anorexia and bolemia happen by distributing materials and setting up a web site to teach these young people that there are 'safe' ways to be bolemic and anorexic. I present suggested diets and distribute suplements designed to keep the anorexic alive and functioning but still in an anorexic state. I concoct ways in which to make the binging cycles less harmfull and perhapse I believe I've found a way to make it as 'harmless' as 'safe sex'.

The problem, firechyld, with the reasoning you give is that it is opening the flood gates of 'well it happens so lets just educate and help people do what they're inevitably going to do in the safest manner possible!' The mafia and gangs are inevitably going to have gang warfare. That doesn't mean we 'make it safer' or more 'convenient' for society. by designating places for their fueds or creating governmental programs to issue silencers for free to hitmen or drive-bye executioners so that they don't wake us up at night as they do what they are going to do anyway. Or we're not going to approach the situation with Iran and nuclear weapons development by saying to them 'It's not good for you to make these weapons but since your most likely going to do it let us show you how to do it without destroying your ecosystems like we and Russia did during the cold war! Here's the way to 'safely' manufacture WMD!'

You are doing the equivalent to removing the shrapnel for long enough to sterilize the wound then reinserting the piece of shrapnel when your done. Humans, in my eye, are agents unto themselves, being promiscuous is not inevitable, we are not animals and we can, if we really try, control our desires and pasions. STD rates did not take off to the devestating levels they are at now independent of the 'sexual revolution'. If you can paint something as 'normal' and have society accept it it will become the norm. That does not mean that it is inevitable. We can acknowledge the problems without facilitating their propegation. Just because we do not make it 'safe' for all to carry out car jackings does not mean that we are not acknowledging that they occure.

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Planned Parenthood is not planning for parenthood but rather the destruction of parenthood.

They are more set up to feed the abortion/birthcontrol industrial complex than they are to help anyone. They are filling their wallets of the exploited bodies of our nations youth (both the born and unborn).

An article of interest on problems of this sick organization.

http://www.all.org/stopp/hoax2.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27687

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

There is no "epidemic" of teen sex. Teens have been having sex since there have been teens. The epidemic is certain sexually transmitted diseases that are preventable by engaging in responsible sexual behavior.


If you believe such to be the case then present facts that show that the rates of sex among teens has remained near or at a constant throughout history.

keypurr
August 14th, 2004, 06:27 PM
It is to bad that every parent in this world teach their children responsible sex education so that an organization like PP is needed.
I don't say everything they do is good, but some of it is. A lot of people who do not believe in what they are doing will always find fault with them. Especially the churches. They should clean out their own closet before cleaning out PP.

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 06:36 PM
An answer to skeptic's sig.


Planned Parenthood and the whole of the disciples of the population bomb theory gave the orders, even though no hard evidence of a threat existed, and billions of people died unnecessarily!

A population bomb exists. But it's not exploding it's imploding. Japan, Germany, heck most of Europe will not likely survive with any semblance of their present identities in tact. Germany, if it's to maintain it's population (and it's economy) it will become an islamic state within the next 50 years. Japan's economy cannot and will not survive the comming implosion. Brazil, considered largely part of the 'developing world' may have HALF of it's female population unable to reproduce at this moment. Any economic 'benefit' caused by this rapid drop off will be VERY short lived and then will leave that great country in a downward spiral economicaly, culturaly, etc.


Tell us skeptic, or anyone, who is going to take care of you when you're old? Do you think you can escape the present outlook of senior citizens in European countries where they far outnumber any other single age group? Demographics will catch up with the world and rather than saving the world through 'population control' we will have sent the world stage into a downward spiral with instability and unbalance as the key catalysts. The likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao rise when the world is in such bad times. Communism and all other evil dictatorial regimes thrive in chaos. That chaos is comming and it is largely the effect of 'sexual revolution' and the dogma of and 'exploding population bomb'.

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

It is to bad that every parent in this world teach their children responsible sex education so that an organization like PP is needed.
I don't say everything they do is good, but some of it is. A lot of people who do not believe in what they are doing will always find fault with them. Especially the churches. They should clean out their own closet before cleaning out PP.

The illusion that they are 'needed' is a dangerous one. I concure with your illusion to the problems much of society faces in confronting the very organization that their neglegence permited in. I do not see the reasoning in dismissing what they do because others are hypocritical. To allow Hitler to continue on his path of death and destruction is not a sane conclusion for one to reach simply because europe and the world provided an enviroment for him to pop up. If we refuse to fight the problems our neglegence has caused we will all be damned to destruction.

Just because someone is stupid and runs around without a coat on in the cold of winter and catchs a cold does not mean that they should surrender their life to the disease simply because their neglegence let it in.

firechyld
August 14th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Pray tell, what is being "measured up" and why? On second thought, don't. Please, just continue on in your lack of wisdom.

"I told my frined about these rulers and he said he wanted to buy one and get another ruler that's 12" long that has the word, "Yes" on it."

Seems lighthouse's friend figured it out.

"Measured up" is a play on a particular concern that, as I understand it, bothers most boys at some stage of their development, regardless of whether they are or plan to be sexually active.

It's also a topic that girls tend to touch on, again regardless of actual sexual activity... probably initially through (non-sexual) contact with aforementioned boys, and later through harmless and inevitable curiousity.

Plays on such concerns bring them into the open and reassure teens that they are normal. I really don't see the harm in that, and I also really doubt that any kid is going to encounter one of these rulers and rush out to lose their virginity to the first passably attractive stranger.

Skeptic
August 15th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

An answer to skeptic's sig.


Planned Parenthood and the whole of the disciples of the population bomb theory gave the orders, even though no hard evidence of a threat existed, and billions of people died unnecessarily!

A population bomb exists. But it's not exploding it's imploding. Japan, Germany, heck most of Europe will not likely survive with any semblance of their present identities in tact. Germany, if it's to maintain it's population (and it's economy) it will become an islamic state within the next 50 years. Japan's economy cannot and will not survive the comming implosion. Brazil, considered largely part of the 'developing world' may have HALF of it's female population unable to reproduce at this moment. Any economic 'benefit' caused by this rapid drop off will be VERY short lived and then will leave that great country in a downward spiral economicaly, culturaly, etc.


Tell us skeptic, or anyone, who is going to take care of you when you're old? Do you think you can escape the present outlook of senior citizens in European countries where they far outnumber any other single age group? Demographics will catch up with the world and rather than saving the world through 'population control' we will have sent the world stage into a downward spiral with instability and unbalance as the key catalysts. The likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao rise when the world is in such bad times. Communism and all other evil dictatorial regimes thrive in chaos. That chaos is comming and it is largely the effect of 'sexual revolution' and the dogma of and 'exploding population bomb'. You're off topic.

But, what's your solution to the population situation?

Sozo
August 15th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic


But, what's your solution to the population situation?

Which situation?

Nineveh
August 15th, 2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

"Measured up" is a play on a particular concern that, as I understand it, bothers most boys at some stage of their development, regardless of whether they are or plan to be sexually active.

And thank you for pointing out the other obvious problem with the "ruler". Not only are girls being exploited by plannedbarrenhood, but now boys are, too.

Mustard Seed
August 15th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

You're off topic.

But, what's your solution to the population situation?

I thought the topic was the perverse nature of Planned Parenthood. To avoid any further cries of being of topic I'll just stick my answer on a new thread I'll create about population problems.

Art Deco
August 15th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Uh... am I the only one who bothered to check out the "teenwire" site?

All I'm seeing is some decent answers to questions that teens ask, some news stories, and some fairly decent advice.

As for this...



... almost everything on that site is aimed at reducing pregnancy rates. There's some really sound contraception advice there.

You don't have to accept the site as a positive thing, but at least go to the trouble of looking at it before you condemn it.



Can anything good come from Planned Parenthood? Oh I forgot, eugenics...:shocked:

Art Deco
August 15th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic The efforts by fundies to stop teens from having any sex until they are married has been and will continue to be misguided and a failure.Only in your family.

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 08:52 PM
And thank you for pointing out the other obvious problem with the "ruler". Not only are girls being exploited by plannedbarrenhood, but now boys are, too.

How the hell are they being exploited? They're being reassured that their fears are normal.

Or do you seriously think that concerns over penis size wouldn't exist if Planned Parenthood disappeared? :rolleyes:

Nineveh
August 16th, 2004, 07:38 AM
firechyld,

How would you like your "partner" to dismiss you on "over use" with a measuring stick if you didn't "measure up"? You are such a knucklehead.

servent101
August 16th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Firechild
if Planned Parenthood disappeared?

Good thought - and to add - Planned Parenthood is an abortion referral agency. They seemed to think that if abortion were allowed that every child would be a wanted child - but after promoting their agenda - child abuse has gone up seven hundred per-cent - really strange but they keep plugging along on the idea that what they do is good, and they use underhanded means to talk people into an abortion - not telling them of the facts - like over half of the women who have an abortion will never have a child - they hide that one from the young women who they talk into having an abortion. Women should sue if they have been talked into an abortion and not been told the facts.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
August 16th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Women should sue if they have been talked into an abortion and not been told the facts.

Actually one did, in Australia. She won her case over "informed consent".

firechyld
August 16th, 2004, 08:28 PM
How would you like your "partner" to dismiss you on "over use" with a measuring stick if you didn't "measure up"? You are such a knucklehead.

What the hell are you talking about?

Reassuring kids that their fears are normal... how did you get from that to your statement?

Nineveh
August 17th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Obviously, you still haven't figured out what is being measured and why....

"Reassuring kids their fears" about their pubescent bodies "are normal"? I wonder why so many girls feel compelled to become anorexic or bulimic. Maybe it's because they aren't "measuring up" to someone else's standard. I've always wondered what sort of nut would support people who murder children, now I know.

servent101
August 17th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Nineveh
Actually one did, in Australia. She won her case over "informed consent".

You are well informed - possibly this is what would do more for the unborn - to have their mothers informed of the facts of abortion.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Mr Jack
August 17th, 2004, 09:40 AM
"like over half of the women who have an abortion will never have a child" - cite please.

firechyld
August 17th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Obviously, you still haven't figured out what is being measured and why....

And, obviously, you STILL haven't checked the site that the rulers are referring teens to. There's a huge section devoted to explaining why these fears and concerns are both normal and unfounded.


"Reassuring kids their fears" about their pubescent bodies "are normal"? I wonder why so many girls feel compelled to become anorexic or bulimic. Maybe it's because they aren't "measuring up" to someone else's standard. I've always wondered what sort of nut would support people who murder children, now I know.

I've had a lot of experience with girls who have eating disorders. There's a lot more to it than feeling like they "don't measure up".

One Eyed Jack
August 17th, 2004, 07:25 PM
They just want attention.

Nineveh
August 17th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

And, obviously, you STILL haven't checked the site that the rulers are referring teens to. There's a huge section devoted to explaining why these fears and concerns are both normal and unfounded.

Directing kids to a place their parents avoided taking them to back in utero is an really stupid idea.



I've had a lot of experience with girls who have eating disorders. There's a lot more to it than feeling like they "don't measure up".

Do you think it would be a good idea for these gals to measure themselves according to other's standards?

firechyld
August 17th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Directing kids to a place their parents avoided taking them to back in utero is an really stupid idea.


What?


Do you think it would be a good idea for these gals to measure themselves according to other's standards?

I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to measure themselves by someone else's standard... which is why I think it's a great idea to set up a website that explains this, then direct kids to it with a humourous gimmick.

Nineveh
August 18th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

What?

The kids are alive, therefore the odds are their parents didn't turn them over to plannedbarrenhood then, turning them over to plannedbarrenhood now is a stupid idea.


I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to measure themselves by someone else's standard... which is why I think it's a great idea to set up a website that explains this, then direct kids to it with a humourous gimmick.

That's because you are twisted.

Free-Agent Smith
August 20th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to measure themselves by someone else's standard... which is why I think it's a great idea to set up a website that explains this, then direct kids to it with a humourous gimmick.

Your idea of a humorous gimmick may be some else's insecurity and they just might not appreciate your humor.

firechyld
August 21st, 2004, 03:09 AM
Your idea of a humorous gimmick may be some else's insecurity and they just might not appreciate your humor.

Again, check out the site that the ruler points you to. It's full of reassurance on the "Does size matter?" question.

Free-Agent Smith
August 21st, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Again, check out the site that the ruler points you to. It's full of reassurance on the "Does size matter?" question.

I find no need to look at a sight for teens about sexuality.

Maybe you should rethink the serious implications of things like this.

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 12:35 AM
I find no need to look at a sight for teens about sexuality.

Maybe you should rethink the serious implications of things like this.

And I think you should maybe take the time to actually look at something before enthusiastically condemning it. You don't even know what you're objecting to.

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 10:15 AM
I can't name one saving grace from plannedbarrenhood. Going to the site for "proof" of how "helpful" they are to kids is to ignore the 1/3 of my generation they have butchered.

Free-Agent Smith
August 22nd, 2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

And I think you should maybe take the time to actually look at something before enthusiastically condemning it. You don't even know what you're objecting to.

Firechild, no matter what your opinion of PPH I'm not going to their site. I used to be connected to them, I know enough.

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I can't name one saving grace from plannedbarrenhood. Going to the site for "proof" of how "helpful" they are to kids is to ignore the 1/3 of my generation they have butchered.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

Firechild, no matter what your opinion of PPH I'm not going to their site. I used to be connected to them, I know enough.

*sigh*

The fact that a person or a company has done a lot of bad things doesn't make them incapable of doing something good.

Believing that abortion is wrong and that Planned Parenthood are responsible for it's proliferation doesn't mean that it's impossible for them to offer some good advice.

I'm not saying "Yay! Planned Parenthood are wonderful and everything that they do is good!"... frankly, I don't have enough interaction with the group to hold that position even if I wanted to. I'm saying that this particular section of this particular Planned Parenthood site has some worthwhile advice and reassurance that it's important for teens to have.

The fact that they offer good advice for this one specific area doesn't negate the fact that they offer pregnancy termination services. I'll give you that much. But, conversely, the fact that they offer pregnancy termination services doesn't negate the fact that they offer good advice on this particular topic.

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 08:52 PM
"The fact that a person or a company has done a lot of bad things doesn't make them incapable of doing something good. "

Do you know who Margret Sanger is and why plannedbarrenhood came into existence? Exactly how many murders does a "person or a company" have to commit before they earn your "bad" badge?

Free-Agent Smith
August 22nd, 2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by firechyld


I'm not saying "Yay! Planned Parenthood are wonderful and everything that they do is good!"... frankly, I don't have enough interaction with the group to hold that position even if I wanted to.



Ok.

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 09:10 PM
Do you know who Margret Sanger is and why plannedbarrenhood came into existence? Exactly how many murders does a "person or a company" have to commit before they earn your "bad" badge?


Yes, I am in possession of that information.

No, this doesn't mean that the organisation is incapable of doing something good.

As horrific as the Holocaust was, some good came out of Nazi Germany. This doesn't excuse the holocaust, but the existence of the holocaust doesn't negate the good.

If it makes you feel better, consider that Planned Parenthood has provided a useful and beneficial service by accident.

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

As horrific as the Holocaust was, some good came out of Nazi Germany. This doesn't excuse the holocaust, but the existence of the holocaust doesn't negate the good.

So it doesn't excuse the holocaust, but should we have stopped it?

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 09:34 PM
*shrug*

In my eyes, yes, but I don't profess to be an expert on world history.

The point is that the nasty bits of German history in that period don't negate the good things to come out of the same period.

Offering pregnancy termination services doesn't negate the fact that Planned Parenthood have provided some good advice on that website.

Free-Agent Smith
August 23rd, 2004, 04:24 PM
The only good advice Planned Parenthood could provide is abstinence to the people they provide services for.

Nineveh
August 23rd, 2004, 05:18 PM
I asked:

"So it doesn't excuse the holocaust, but should we have stopped it?"

You answered:

Originally posted by firechyld
... yes, ...

So if we should have stopped the holocaust then, ( even though there might have been some good in the 3rd Reich somewhere ) then perhaps we should stop plannedbarrenhood's holocaust now, even if there is some good lurking in an abortuary somewhere.

A woman's medical health is best suited in a physician's care, not a murderer's.

firechyld
August 23rd, 2004, 05:43 PM
The only good advice Planned Parenthood could provide is abstinence to the people they provide services for.


*shrug*

Personally, I think that telling concerned teens that they are perfectly normal and that they shouldn't measure their worth by comparing themselves to others is pretty good advice.


So if we should have stopped the holocaust then, ( even though there might have been some good in the 3rd Reich somewhere ) then perhaps we should stop plannedbarrenhood's holocaust now, even if there is some good lurking in an abortuary somewhere.

I'm not arguing that. You want to get pregnancy termination made illegal again, knock yourself out. All I'm maintaining is that this particular service is a positive one, regardless of who provides it.


A woman's medical health is best suited in a physician's care, not a murderer's.

You do realise that the vast majority of people who perform terminations are doctors, right?

Nineveh
August 24th, 2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'm not arguing that. You want to get pregnancy termination made illegal again, knock yourself out. All I'm maintaining is that this particular service is a positive one, regardless of who provides it.

Even though you just admitted even a "tiny bit of good" doesn't outweigh mass murder.


You do realise that the vast majority of people who perform terminations are doctors, right?

A med degree isn't necessary to be a butcher. I wonder why victims have to be "rushed" to the hospital in an effort to save their life if the "competent hands" of the murderer at a "women's clinic" aren't so steady.

A woman's medical health is best suited in a physician's care, not a murderer's.

Free-Agent Smith
August 24th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

You do realise that the vast majority of people who perform terminations are doctors, right?

And this is contrary to a doctor's oath except in a situation of life and death.

firechyld
August 24th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Even though you just admitted even a "tiny bit of good" doesn't outweigh mass murder.


Exactly.

I'll explain it again: I'm NOT saying that the prescence of this one positive service "makes up for" the termination services offered by Planned Parenthood. I'm simply pointing out that the termination services do not negate the one positive service.

The website that we've been discussing is a positive service. That's a statement that stands by itself. It doesn't have "... which means Planned Parenthood is intrinsically good." or "... which means that it's OK to offer termination services." on the end of it. It may be the only positive service they offer. It may be one of many. I'm not offering a judgement on that.


A med degree isn't necessary to be a butcher. I wonder why victims have to be "rushed" to the hospital in an effort to save their life if the "competent hands" of the murderer at a "women's clinic" aren't so steady.

Because a hospital has the equipment necessary to provide more than one service?


A woman's medical health is best suited in a physician's care, not a murderer's.

*shrug* I think it depends on the doctor, not the services that they offer.

Agent Smith...


And this is contrary to a doctor's oath except in a situation of life and death.

Technically it's not... but that's from a legal standpoint. The "morality" of the situation is a completely different matter.

Free-Agent Smith
August 24th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by firechyld
Agent Smith...
Technically it's not... but that's from a legal standpoint. The "morality" of the situation is a completely different matter.


The Hippocratic Oath (http://www.hal-pc.org/~ollie/hippocratic.oath.html). Maybe you have never heard of this?

firechyld
August 24th, 2004, 10:24 PM
The Hippocratic Oath. Maybe you have never heard of this?

Yes, I've heard of it. But in a country where terminating a pregnancy is legal, performing a termination does not technically violate the Hippocratic Oath.

Free-Agent Smith
August 24th, 2004, 10:35 PM
Doctor's Oath. (http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html)

My apologies. The link above is the Hippocratic Oath being used today in the United States, atleast this is the only version used by the American Medical Association.

firechyld
August 24th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Interesting.

Free-Agent Smith
August 24th, 2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Yes, I've heard of it. But in a country where terminating a pregnancy is legal, performing a termination does not technically violate the Hippocratic Oath.

I'm in the United States, I won't argue for other countries till they are illegal everywherein the US.

firechyld
August 24th, 2004, 11:00 PM
I'm in the United States, I won't argue for other countries till they are illegal everywherein the US.

That's fine... but at the moment, they're not. And hence it's not technically a violation of the oath.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly approve of tackling the problem by legal means.

Nineveh
August 25th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Exactly.

So let's shut the abortuaries.


Because a hospital has the equipment necessary to provide more than one service?

And to think...

Plannedbarrenhood is only supposed to be dedicated to women's needs. Gee.

When they almost kill someone beside the intended victim they aren't prepared to fix their butchery.

... thanks for pointing out how incapable they really are.

firechyld
August 25th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

So let's shut the abortuaries.

*shrug*

Do it legally, and I don't really care.


And to think...

Plannedbarrenhood is only supposed to be dedicated to women's needs. Gee.

When they almost kill someone beside the intended victim they aren't prepared to fix their butchery.

That's not exactly what happens...

You know, if you're in hospital for any reason, and something goes wrong, they move you to an area of the hospital that can better treat the complication. If you're at a small clinic (any kind of clinic) that doesn't have full emergency facilities, they move you to the nearest hospital.

This is all that's happening when they move someone from an abortion clinic to a hospital because of complications... they're getting them to the place where they can best be treated. It would be completely unfeasible for every small clinic to have full emergency facilities, whether it's an abortion clinic or a dentist.


... thanks for pointing out how incapable they really are.

They're not incapable... they're perfectly equipped to perform the service they offer. They're just specialised... much like a dentist.

One more reason why terminations should be performed in hospitals.

Nineveh
August 26th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
That's not exactly what happens...

It most certainly is what happens.

A butcher puts a machine or device where they shouldn't be and causes damage a murderer isn't prepared to handle. They are not really set up to care for women's health. Especially the women they are aborting in utero.



They're not incapable...

When it comes to murder, you are absolutely right.

firechyld
August 26th, 2004, 11:03 PM
A butcher puts a machine or device where they shouldn't be and causes damage a murderer isn't prepared to handle. They are not really set up to care for women's health. Especially the women they are aborting in utero.


You are aware that doctors specialise, right?

Nineveh
August 27th, 2004, 12:04 PM
In abortion?!

Free-Agent Smith
August 27th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

That's fine... but at the moment, they're not. And hence it's not technically a violation of the oath.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly approve of tackling the problem by legal means.

It is a doctor's responsability to preserve life, not take it.

firechyld
August 29th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Ninevah...


In abortion?!


In lots of things.

You wouldn't want a cosmetic dentist or a dermatologist taking you through surgery, would you?

Frankly, if I were (hypothetically) getting a pregnancy terminated and something went wrong, I'd feel that the best thing that doctor could do would be to get me to the nearest ER and emergency doctor as soon an physically possible.

Agent Smith...


It is a doctor's responsability to preserve life, not take it.

True. But the legislation of the country he works in plays as big a part as his own ethics in deciding on the definition of "life".

Free-Agent Smith
August 29th, 2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by firechyld
Agent Smith...

True. But the legislation of the country he works in plays as big a part as his own ethics in deciding on the definition of "life". A doctor cannot be forced to perform abortions legally. My government doesn't do my doctors thinking for him. And I know plenty of doctors who refuse to do abortions. Actually I don't know a single doctor (personally) that would ever perform an abortion or help anyone who does want one except in emergency situations in which the mother's life is in danger.

And when legislation makes any law regardling "life", that doesn't neccesarilly change which procedures a doctor has to perform.

Nineveh
August 29th, 2004, 09:31 PM
firechyld,
Here, from what I understand, it's more like a "class" offered in residency.

firechyld
August 29th, 2004, 09:47 PM
A doctor cannot be forced to perform abortions legally. My government doesn't do my doctors thinking for him. And I know plenty of doctors who refuse to do abortions. Actually I don't know a single doctor (personally) that would ever perform an abortion or help anyone who does want one except in emergency situations in which the mother's life is in danger.

And when legislation makes any law regardling "life", that doesn't neccesarilly change which procedures a doctor has to perform.

I never said he could be forced to perform abortions. I specifically said that the services he provided were determined by legislation AND his personal ethics.

firechyld
August 29th, 2004, 09:48 PM
Here, from what I understand, it's more like a "class" offered in residency.

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in Australia every doctor who performs terminations is an OB GYN or similar.

They're trained to perform certain procedures, but if something goes wrong they get someone trained in different areas to take over.

Nineveh
August 29th, 2004, 10:06 PM
Trained to take over for a perforated uterus? Isn't that what OB/GYNs do? Take care of uteri?

firechyld
August 29th, 2004, 10:11 PM
Trained to take over for a perforated uterus? Isn't that what OB/GYNs do? Take care of uteri?

Yes.

I was thinking more along the lines of serious complications that fall outside their realm of expertise. Apologies if that was unclear.

Free-Agent Smith
August 29th, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I never said he could be forced to perform abortions. I specifically said that the services he provided were determined by legislation AND his personal ethics.

A doctor in the United States is only required to perform services to preserve the sanctity of life.

firechyld
August 29th, 2004, 10:39 PM
A doctor in the United States is only required to perform services to preserve the sanctity of life.

Yes, and if elective abortion is not legally considered to be depriving an individual of life, then the doctor is not breaching his professional ethics by performing one. His personal ethics are a different matter.

I'm not trying to argue that legal abortion is "right" or "moral"... I'm just pointing out that it is legal, and hence not a brief of any doctor's oath. It can still be wrong.

Nineveh
August 30th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Yes.

Except when it happens at a "clinic" desingated for "women's health"?


I was thinking more along the lines of serious complications that fall outside their realm of expertise. Apologies if that was unclear.

Like a perforated uterus, or pulling bowel into the uterus, yes, things of that nature that butchers do to a woman's uterus.

firechyld
August 30th, 2004, 06:00 PM
Except when it happens at a "clinic" desingated for "women's health"?

As I said, I presumed we were referring to complications that fell outside the scope of OB GYN specialisation.


Like a perforated uterus, or pulling bowel into the uterus, yes, things of that nature that butchers do to a woman's uterus.

How common are those complications in the states? (Actual figures only, please) They're incredibly rare here, but as I pointed out, you have to be an OB GYN to perform a termination in Australia. Apparantly that may not be the case in the US.

Nineveh
August 30th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Complications involving uteri fall outside the scope of OB/GYNs?

Regardless of if it happens once or a billion times, butchers aren't prepared for emergencies they create at a "women's health clinic".

firechyld
August 30th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Complications involving uteri fall outside the scope of OB/GYNs?

*sigh*

No....

I'll go through this slowly.

When we were discussing people being moved to hospital for complications arising during a termination, I presumed we were talking about complications that were beyond the scope of an OB GYN. Not all complications fall into this category... an OB GYN can take care of a minor interuterine perforation, but not something like a major haemorrage, or anything that is going to require major surgery.

If something like this does occur, the best thing that the doctor can do is get you to a specialist.


Regardless of if it happens once or a billion times, butchers aren't prepared for emergencies they create at a "women's health clinic".

And dentists aren't prepared for major complications, and neither are plastic surgeons, and neither are orthodontists, and neither are dermatoligists, and neither are reconstructive surgeons specialising in knee ligaments, and neither are anaesthesiologists, and neither are gastroenterologists, and neither are neurologists....

Are you getting the picture? They aren't moving women with complications because they're inept, they're moving them because there are specialists who can provide better assistance in that circumstance. If you were being treated by any of the specialists I mentioned above and there was a complication, you'd be moved to the nearest ER immediately. Would you consider that your dentist had not been "prepared for emergencies they create"?

Free-Agent Smith
August 30th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Actually a large amount of doctors in the United States won't perform abortions because they consider it "killing a life".
As that has been said.... No most people performing abortions in the United States aren't doctors. Oddly enough Planned Parenthood is supposed to be government regulated.

firechyld
August 30th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Actually a large amount of doctors in the United States won't perform abortions because they consider it "killing a life".

Yes, which is their personal ethic coming into play.


As that has been said.... No most people performing abortions in the United States aren't doctors. Oddly enough Planned Parenthood is supposed to be government regulated.

Seriously? They aren't doctors? You got some sort of evidence to back that up?

Nineveh
August 31st, 2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
When we were discussing people being moved to hospital for complications arising during a termination, I presumed we were talking about complications that were beyond the scope of an OB GYN.

Really now... like what? What sorts of "complications" usually arise during a butcher session?

The reason women (and sometimes girls) are rushed to the emergency room is (I'll say this again in case you missed it the first few times) butchers aren't prepared to handle the emergencies they create at the "women's health clinic".



Not all complications fall into this category...

All of them that are created by the butchers during the murder are.


an OB GYN can take care of a minor interuterine perforation, but not something like a major haemorrage, or anything that is going to require major surgery.

I'm trying to think of a single instance where a perforated organ is considered "minor". You seem to be slipping ito your fantasy world again. When a murder goes wrong, they either bundle them off to the nearest ER, or send them home in that condition.


If something like this does occur, the best thing that the doctor can do is get you to a specialist.

Even though an OB/GYN is a specialist.


And dentists aren't prepared for major complications, and neither are plastic surgeons, and neither are orthodontists, and neither are dermatoligists, and neither are reconstructive surgeons specialising in knee ligaments, and neither are anaesthesiologists, and neither are gastroenterologists, and neither are neurologists....

How many times has a dentist perforated the nasal cavity and pulled sinus tissue out?

How many times has liposuction punchured a bowel and the "doc" sent the victim home in that condition?

In your attempt to exhonorate murderers, you sound silly.


They aren't moving women with complications because they're inept,

Pulling a woman's bowels out through her uterus isn't ineptitude?


they're moving them because there are specialists who can provide better assistance in that circumstance.

Uh... is that because OB/GYNs aren't specialist in uteri again?


If you were being treated by any of the specialists I mentioned above and there was a complication, you'd be moved to the nearest ER immediately. Would you consider that your dentist had not been "prepared for emergencies they create"?

I have never heard of a dentist rushing a person to the hospital because of gross negligence. This must be one of those things that only happen in Australia.

firechyld
August 31st, 2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

The reason women (and sometimes girls) are rushed to the emergency room is (I'll say this again in case you missed it the first few times) butchers aren't prepared to handle the emergencies they create at the "women's health clinic".

I didn't miss it. I just think you're making an assumption which is highly likely to be inaccurate, and you don't have anything to back it up.


All of them that are created by the butchers during the murder are.

Any surgical procedure carries the risk of complications. Regardless of how you feel about the morality of abortion, that is what a termination is: a surgical procedure.

I don't think there is any surgical procedure at all that can be guaranteed to go completely according to plan with no risk of complications.


I'm trying to think of a single instance where a perforated organ is considered "minor". You seem to be slipping ito your fantasy world again. When a murder goes wrong, they either bundle them off to the nearest ER, or send them home in that condition.

I never said a perforated organ was minor. I mentioned a "minor interuterine perforation". The contrast is a major interuterine perforation. There's a difference.

It's like the difference between a minor heart attack and a major cardiac arrest. No-one's saying that the small heart attack is a minor occurance to the patient, but it's still a lot less critical than the major failure. These things are measured on a sliding scale.


Even though an OB/GYN is a specialist.

Yes... they specialise in something that isn't emergency or reconstructive surgery.


How many times has a dentist perforated the nasal cavity and pulled sinus tissue out?

How can I give you a figure on that? You can't even give me a figure on how many times an OB GYN has perforated a uterus, and that's a major facet of your argument.


How many times has liposuction punchured a bowel and the "doc" sent the victim home in that condition?

See, I know that liposuction can result in complications like that.

The "sent home" thing isn't a fair comparison in this case, however. The reason women who suffer termination complications often do not know that they have a complication because it's an internal procedure. It happens all the time with non-abortion surgeries. Haven't you heard the horror stories about people finding that their surgeon has left something inside them? Do you know anyone who has had a minor haemorrage and been sent home because it wasn't detected. I do.


In your attempt to exhonorate murderers, you sound silly.

No, you just don't seem to be able to understand certain simple facts about the nature of surgery.

And I'm not trying to "exhonerate murderers".


Pulling a woman's bowels out through her uterus isn't ineptitude?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Do you think that all surgical complications (in all types of surgery, not just terminations) are the result of ineptitude?


Uh... is that because OB/GYNs aren't specialist in uteri again?

I never said they weren't specialists in uteri. I said that they weren't specialists in emergency or reconstructive surgery. You don't seem to be able to grasp this fact....


I have never heard of a dentist rushing a person to the hospital because of gross negligence. This must be one of those things that only happen in Australia.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I said NOTHING about gross negligence... in fact, my last several posts have been devoted to trying to hammer into your head that complications are NOT always the result of negligence. I'll say it again, just in case you still don't get it: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGLIGENCE!! I AM TALIKING ABOUT COMPLICATIONS!!

Dentists do have to move patients to an ER if there are complications in procedure. This usually happens when performing dental surgery under local anaesthetic. A friend of mine had to be rushed to an ER because he started haemorraging while his wisdom teeth were being removed. Pretty scary stuff.

Free-Agent Smith
August 31st, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Yes, which is their personal ethic coming into play.
Good thing too.



Seriously? They aren't doctors? You got some sort of evidence to back that up?
I said "most people", not all. My evidence? How about you come and visit some of them here in the U.S. and see for yourself?
Getting a list of the people performing them is almost next impossible.

firechyld
August 31st, 2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Good thing too.

*shrug* Deciding against something because of your personal ethics can't really be a bad thing....


I said "most people", not all. My evidence? How about you come and visit some of them here in the U.S. and see for yourself?

Doll, I can't even afford to go up the coast for a weekend. How am I supposed to get to the States?

Well, what are you basing that statement on? I'm not accusing you of lying, I just don't tend to take statements like that at face value. What have you based this opinion on? Feel free to relate a story...


Getting a list of the people performing them is almost next impossible.

Really? How come?

Nineveh
September 1st, 2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I didn't miss it. I just think you're making an assumption which is highly likely to be inaccurate, and you don't have anything to back it up.

Except the women who die.


Any surgical procedure carries the risk of complications. Regardless of how you feel about the morality of abortion, that is what a termination is: a surgical procedure.

Who brought morality into it? I've been talking mortality. It's an invasive surgery done with little to no governing medical standard in an alleged "women's health clinic".


I don't think there is any surgical procedure at all that can be guaranteed to go completely according to plan with no risk of complications.

If as many women died of liposuction, liposuction would have been outlawed years ago.


I never said a perforated organ was minor. I mentioned a "minor interuterine perforation". The contrast is a major interuterine perforation. There's a difference.

It's still a perforated uterus. A uterus is an organ. There is no such creature as a minor perforation in an organ. Unless this is another of those anomalies that only happens in Australia.


It's like the difference between a minor heart attack and a major cardiac arrest.

No a "minor" perforation is like a little hole in the heart.

I said: " Even though an OB/GYN is a specialist." You replied:

Yes... they specialise in something that isn't emergency or reconstructive surgery.

Are you telling me an OB/GYN isn't specailized to deal with uterine emergencies?


How can I give you a figure on that? You can't even give me a figure on how many times an OB GYN has perforated a uterus, and that's a major facet of your argument.

Over here OB/GYN isn't a creditial one needs to be a butcher. I have never ever heard of a dentist perforating the top of a patient's mouth "by accident" and then proceed to "accidentally" pull nasal tissue through the hole.


See, I know that liposuction can result in complications like that.

I've never heard of a single instance of bowel being sucked out during liposuction. I've never heard of a plastic surgeon being sent to jail or having their liscence suspended for repeated "accidents" either. Please keep in mind before you start giving examples, we are talking about gross negligence, like we find in an abortuary.


The "sent home" thing isn't a fair comparison in this case, however. The reason women who suffer termination complications often do not know that they have a complication because it's an internal procedure.

It's sad you are so in need to support the murder of children in the womb, the women who DO KNOW they are bleeding to death yet get no assistance from the butcher or his associates will be pushed asside merely for you to make your point.

Bruce Steir's motive was to save his liscence, not his victim's life. He isn't the only example, just one of the latest ones.


It happens all the time with non-abortion surgeries. Haven't you heard the horror stories about people finding that their surgeon has left something inside them? Do you know anyone who has had a minor haemorrage and been sent home because it wasn't detected. I do.

In the cases of implanted foriegn matter after surgery, the hospital and all involved usually get sued after the evidence has been removed from the plaintiff. But a hospital knowingly sending a patient with internal bleeding home? No, I've never heard of such a thing. I bet the insurance companies and trial lawyers would love to talk to you about all the ones you know about though.


No, you just don't seem to be able to understand certain simple facts about the nature of surgery.

I'd say to the same degree you don't understand the nature of a butcher.


And I'm not trying to "exhonerate murderers".

Yes you are. You are trying to paint burchers like Steir as responsible physicians.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Do you think that all surgical complications (in all types of surgery, not just terminations) are the result of ineptitude?

No, I don't. I think accidents happen in the practice of medicine. In a hospital, where people go to get real medical help and healing, the seconds count. I further believe the hospital will do everything within their power to preserve the life of their patients and make sure as far as humanly possible they are as whole as they can be before being released by the doctors.

None of this speaks to an abortuary or the butchers.


I never said they weren't specialists in uteri. I said that they weren't specialists in emergency or reconstructive surgery. You don't seem to be able to grasp this fact....

I think you don't know what OB/GYNs are trained in. When it suits your argument they are skilled enough to take on a perforated uterus, and when it doesn't suit your argument they aren't capable of taking care of a hole in a uterus.


Again, you put words in my mouth. I said NOTHING about gross negligence... in fact, my last several posts have been devoted to trying to hammer into your head that complications are NOT always the result of negligence. I'll say it again, just in case you still don't get it: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGLIGENCE!! I AM TALIKING ABOUT COMPLICATIONS!!

On December 13, 1996, Dr. Steir performed an abortion on a woman named Sharon Hamptlon at a Moreno Valley clinic. According to the testimony of a medical professional assisting in the procedure, at one point Steir's facial expression changed and he said that he had "pulled bowel." Ms. Hamptlon's uterus had been punctured. Steir left the clinic to catch a plane back to San Francisco before the injured woman was released. She died later that day.

I'd say he was negligent concerning the complications he created, so did the court. And... he isn't the only one. So dream freely in the fantasy world you have created to make it ok to murder unborn children, cuz out here in reality, it's way more cruel than you want to believe.

Free-Agent Smith
September 1st, 2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by firechyld
Well, what are you basing that statement on? I'm not accusing you of lying, I just don't tend to take statements like that at face value. What have you based this opinion on? Feel free to relate a story...
On this one my experience will remain my own.



Really? How come?

Because here in the U.S. doctors who perform abortions tend to be looked down upon and try to hide the fact that they are performing them.

firechyld
September 1st, 2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Except the women who die.

And how often does that actually happen?

Seriously, I'm asking. Can you find that information?


Who brought morality into it? I've been talking mortality. It's an invasive surgery

Yes, which puts it in the same bracket as any other invasive surgical procedure.


done with little to no governing medical standard in an alleged "women's health clinic".

Is this something you can prove happens? Again, I'm asking quite seriously. I asked Agent Smith if he could prove that "most people performing abortions aren't doctors", and he couldn't. I'm not saying that that proves it isn't true, but I'd like something a little more concrete than your opinion. Bear in mind that my country deals with abortion very differently from yours.


If as many women died of liposuction, liposuction would have been outlawed years ago.

Again, can I get some actual verifiable figures here?


It's still a perforated uterus. A uterus is an organ. There is no such creature as a minor perforation in an organ. Unless this is another of those anomalies that only happens in Australia.

You've never heard the term "minor perferation" in the context of surgery?

Here's the results of a google search using those terms. (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22minor+perforation%22+surgery&meta=)

Clearly it's not something I just made up.


No a "minor" perforation is like a little hole in the heart.

It's a term used by medical practitioners.


Are you telling me an OB/GYN isn't specailized to deal with uterine emergencies?

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that they're not specialised to deal with all the complications that can arise during this manner of surgery.

This is a kinda jumping the gun, anyway. I'm still waiting to hear back on how many people providing terminations are actually OB GYNs. As I said, all doctors in Australia who perform terminations are OB GYNs... if this isn't the case in the US, then clearly the situation regarding complications is different.


Over here OB/GYN isn't a creditial one needs to be a butcher.

Again, I'm not disbelieving you, but do you have any evidence of that that I could see? I know it's a little tricky to prove that something isn't the case, but any supporting text you could link to would be appreciated.


I've never heard of a single instance of bowel being sucked out during liposuction. I've never heard of a plastic surgeon being sent to jail or having their liscence suspended for repeated "accidents" either.

You're comparing completely different kinds of surgery and expecting the complications to be the same. A plastic surgeon may not "suck" one organ into another.... but you're not going to get an OB GYN permanently destroying your skin infrastructure, either. Different kinds of surgery have different risks. Both of these examples are complications that could be the result of negligence, and could simply be the result of the risky business that is a surgical procedure.


Please keep in mind before you start giving examples, we are talking about gross negligence, like we find in an abortuary.

We weren't talking about gross negligence. We were specifically NOT talking about gross negligence. Until this point, we were discussing complications that arise out of factors related to the risks of surgery, not of screw-ups.

But if you want to talk about negligence, I'm not denying that it happens. I'm not even denying that it happens regularly. I AM denying that it is restricted to termination procedures, and I AM denying that all complications arising during a termination are the result of negligence.


It's sad you are so in need to support the murder of children in the womb, the women who DO KNOW they are bleeding to death yet get no assistance from the butcher or his associates will be pushed asside merely for you to make your point.

Again, how often does this happen? It's not something I've ever heard of in real life... however, I again need to point out that termination in Australia and termination in America seem to be very different things.


In the cases of implanted foriegn matter after surgery, the hospital and all involved usually get sued after the evidence has been removed from the plaintiff.

As they should.


But a hospital knowingly sending a patient with internal bleeding home?

Do hosptials/clinics regularly do this after women have terminations? Can you prove it, or are you just facilitating the spread of an urban legend?


I'd say to the same degree you don't understand the nature of a butcher.

The fact that you describe them as "butchers" indicates that you don't, either. Do you honestly think that doctors who perform terminations leap up every morning thinking "Woohoo! Another day full of the slaughter of innocent babies! I love my life!"

I really doubt it.


Yes you are. You are trying to paint burchers like Steir as responsible physicians.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that a responsible physician is perfectly capable of having complications arise during surgery, and that complications are not necessarily proof of negligence. I'm also awaiting some verifiable facts on several points you and Smith have made... that many people performing terminations are not doctors, that many women die as a results of termination complications, that women are regularly sent home from terminations when those operating on her know that she's haemorraging... etc. I'm honestly interested. Since these things clearly aren't happening in my country, I'm forced to assume that either they are urban myths, or that American abortion policy is seriously inferior to Australian.


No, I don't. I think accidents happen in the practice of medicine. In a hospital, where people go to get real medical help and healing, the seconds count. I further believe the hospital will do everything within their power to preserve the life of their patients and make sure as far as humanly possible they are as whole as they can be before being released by the doctors.

None of this speaks to an abortuary or the butchers.

I think that most doctors hold the same beliefs, even if they operate out of a small clinic rather than a fully staffed hospital.


I think you don't know what OB/GYNs are trained in. When it suits your argument they are skilled enough to take on a perforated uterus, and when it doesn't suit your argument they aren't capable of taking care of a hole in a uterus.

Untrue. There is a point where a reconstructive surgeon is required.

Besides, even if a specific OB GYN is qualified to take care of every complication, that doesn't mean that their small clinic has all the resources required to allow full care. Rushing a complications victim to a major hospital is often just as much about getting them to better facilities and resources as about changing doctors.

[/quoteOn December 13, 1996, Dr. Steir performed an abortion on a woman named Sharon Hamptlon at a Moreno Valley clinic. According to the testimony of a medical professional assisting in the procedure, at one point Steir's facial expression changed and he said that he had "pulled bowel." Ms. Hamptlon's uterus had been punctured. Steir left the clinic to catch a plane back to San Francisco before the injured woman was released. She died later that day.

I'd say he was negligent concerning the complications he created, so did the court. [/quote]

And based on this information, I'd agree with you.... he was negligent regarding the complication and it's aftermath, not necessarily because the complication occured in the first place. He should have been held responsible, and from the sound of it he was. However, I don't have all the information, so that's as far as I'll go with the agreement. I don't tend to form opinions on people's actions without having all the available data.


And... he isn't the only one.

He isn't the only what? Doctor who has had complications occur during surgery? Or doctor who mistakenly believes that a patient has been adequately treated? I don't see how this story supports your "mentality of a butcher" argument. The man made a mistake, which was tragically costly.


So dream freely in the fantasy world you have created to make it ok to murder unborn children, cuz out here in reality, it's way more cruel than you want to believe.

I've never said it's "OK to murder unborn children". Stop putting words in my mouth and stop misquoting my position.

firechyld
September 1st, 2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

On this one my experience will remain my own.

*shrug*

I can respect that, but you have to acknowledge that you can hardly use the results of these experiences to prove a point if you aren't prepared to share them.


Because here in the U.S. doctors who perform abortions tend to be looked down upon and try to hide the fact that they are performing them.

Then how do women find these doctors if they're after the procedure?

Nineveh
September 2nd, 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

And how often does that actually happen?

Seriously, I'm asking. Can you find that information?

Way more than "casual contact" STDs.


Yes, which puts it in the same bracket as any other invasive surgical procedure.

Now you need to explain since it is such an invasive medical procedure, why they aren't prepared for emergencies, just like every other invasive medical procedure.


Is this something you can prove happens? Again, I'm asking quite seriously.

Here is a link (http://www.unitedforlife.org/guides/clininc_regs/clinic_regs.htm) with a few instances. You can research the information given from there. I want you to note as you read this, any regulations for an abortuary are fought in court. So the regs that are in place are there because the state forced them.


Again, can I get some actual verifiable figures here?

I don't know of anyone dying from liposuction. So you will have to look that up for yourself.


You've never heard the term "minor perferation" in the context of surgery?

Did you notice they are things to be fixed? It's "minor" as opposed to "major" but not something to be ignored, like Steir did.


No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that they're not specialised to deal with all the complications that can arise during this manner of surgery.

It's not surgery, it's butchery. With their claims of how "safe" murder is, they aren't able to take care of these emergencies. You still don't want to understand the point do you? That a "woman's health clinic" that promises "safe" murder isn't able to take care of these "complications" that arise because of the butchery.


This is a kinda jumping the gun, anyway. I'm still waiting to hear back on how many people providing terminations are actually OB GYNs. As I said, all doctors in Australia who perform terminations are OB GYNs... if this isn't the case in the US, then clearly the situation regarding complications is different.

I'd like to see where Australia has that demand on butchers myself. Here butchery is mostly handled as a "class" that can be opted out of.


You're comparing completely different kinds of surgery and expecting the complications to be the same.

Me?

You are the one needing to bring up Dentistry, etc. to make your point.


We weren't talking about gross negligence. We were specifically NOT talking about gross negligence.

I can see why you wouldn't want to, but that's how women die at the abortuary.


But if you want to talk about negligence, I'm not denying that it happens. I'm not even denying that it happens regularly.

Good. Progress!


Again, how often does this happen? It's not something I've ever heard of in real life... however, I again need to point out that termination in Australia and termination in America seem to be very different things.

Did you read about the real Butcher Steir? For crying out loud, get your head out of the sand.


As they should.

I agree. Link for those who may need to sue over an abortion injury (http://www.prolife.com/800-U-Can-Sue.html).


Do hosptials/clinics regularly do this after women have terminations? Can you prove it, or are you just facilitating the spread of an urban legend?

Do a Google search on "botched abortions". It would be much easier than posting all the links.


The fact that you describe them as "butchers" indicates that you don't, either. Do you honestly think that doctors who perform terminations leap up every morning thinking "Woohoo! Another day full of the slaughter of innocent babies! I love my life!"

No, I don't think that at all, in fact I think the opposite. Want some testimonies?
Former butchers (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0438_Former_Abortionists.html)
Another former butcher (http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jarrett.htm)


even if a specific OB GYN is qualified to take care of every complication, that doesn't mean that their small clinic has all the resources required to allow full care.

They don't even provide basic care, especially with RU486. If they aren't able to handle it, the best for all involved is to close them.


He should have been held responsible, and from the sound of it he was.

6 months. Out in 4. Yeah... that should teach him...


However, I don't have all the information

Google his name.


He isn't the only what? Doctor who has had complications occur during surgery? Or doctor who mistakenly believes that a patient has been adequately treated? I don't see how this story supports your "mentality of a butcher" argument. The man made a mistake, which was tragically costly.

For real! LOL A mistake?! One doesn't "flee" the scene of a "mistake".

He left knowing he had pulled bowel into her uterus. And he "isn't sorry". Anyway, read the links for the former butchers, seems their mind set, while a little better than Steir, wasn't far off.


I've never said it's "OK to murder unborn children". Stop putting words in my mouth and stop misquoting my position.

Oh, so you are prolife now? Since when?

Free-Agent Smith
September 2nd, 2004, 04:28 PM
You said:

Is this something you can prove happens? Again, I'm asking quite seriously. I asked Agent Smith if he could prove that "most people performing abortions aren't doctors", and he couldn't. I'm not saying that that proves it isn't true, but I'd like something a little more concrete than your opinion. Bear in mind that my country deals with abortion very differently from yours.

Here are some statistics-> Link (http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/shortage_provider.htm)

Free-Agent Smith
September 2nd, 2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by firechyld



Then how do women find these doctors if they're after the procedure?


They contact places like Planned Parenthood.

firechyld
September 2nd, 2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Way more than "casual contact" STDs.

*sigh*

Are you going to actually provide me with information backing up your position, or are you going to (again) give me the runaround with "witty" comments that prove nothing?


Now you need to explain since it is such an invasive medical procedure, why they aren't prepared for emergencies, just like every other invasive medical procedure.

Any surgery that isn't performed in a hospital runs the risk of being unprepared for all complications. No small specialised clinic, regardless of what services they offer, can possibly offer the resources of a full ER.

If terminations were being performed in hospitals, these resources would be closer.


Here is a link (http://www.unitedforlife.org/guides/clininc_regs/clinic_regs.htm) with a few instances. You can research the information given from there. I want you to note as you read this, any regulations for an abortuary are fought in court. So the regs that are in place are there because the state forced them.

If that's accurate, it's pretty retarded.

I'm a little cautious about taking information from clearly biased sites at face value. I don't blindly accept information from pro-choice sites without verification, so I'm not going to do it for the pro-life material either.

However, you have provided me with what I asked for. I appreciate it, and I'll attempt to verify the information myself. The site has included specific legislation, so that shouldn't be too difficult.


Did you notice they are things to be fixed? It's "minor" as opposed to "major" but not something to be ignored, like Steir did.

I never said it should be ignored. Quite the contrary. You just objected to my use of the word "minor", although I believe it was used in context.


It's not surgery, it's butchery. With their claims of how "safe" murder is, they aren't able to take care of these emergencies. You still don't want to understand the point do you? That a "woman's health clinic" that promises "safe" murder isn't able to take care of these "complications" that arise because of the butchery.

No, it's surgery. It's a surgical procedure. Whether it's "morally wrong" or not is irrelevant to that fact... by definition, a termination is a surgical procedure.

Oh, and do you have a reference in which a termination facility offers a guarantee of a completely safe procedure? In Australia, the risks are made quite clear before one undergoes the surgery.


I'd like to see where Australia has that demand on butchers myself. Here butchery is mostly handled as a "class" that can be opted out of.

What do you mean by "demand"? Over here, termination is just another service offered by some OB GYNs, but not by non-OB GYNs. *shrug* We don't really have an abortion debate. At all.


Me?

You are the one needing to bring up Dentistry, etc. to make your point.

I'm pointing out that complications arise in any form of surgery. You seem to think that this is a moot point unless the complications are identical. Well, that's just not going to be the case unless the surgeries are also identical.


I can see why you wouldn't want to, but that's how women die at the abortuary.

Give me figures. How many women in any given year have died because of complications during a pregnancy termination that can be specifically tied to "gross negligence" on the part of the surgeon?

And don't bring up the "liberal conspiracy". It's laughable.


Did you read about the real Butcher Steir? For crying out loud, get your head out of the sand.

Again, I asked you for specific information, and you give me the runaround... this time with insults.

How many women in a given year were sent home after a pregnancy termination when the people operating on her knew that she was bleeding internally?

I'm sorry, but it sounds like an urban legend to me. Why would people performing these procedures in a country which is in the middle of the biggest abortion debate on the planet act in such a way, when it clearly undermines the acceptability of their position? Why would they knowingly give such ammunition to the pro-life movement? More importantly, why would they willingly and knowingly let women die when their main motivation appears to be providing a service that they consider to be the right of that woman?


I agree. Link for those who may need to sue over an abortion injury (http://www.prolife.com/800-U-Can-Sue.html).

Ooh... that's quite clever of them. :) Pro-life propaganda cunningly disguised as a service for women who are clearly pro-choice. I like it.

[
They don't even provide basic care, especially with RU486. If they aren't able to handle it, the best for all involved is to close them.

Ah, I see. You only want the clinics closed because they aren't providing a full service. I'm sure once they're closed you'll be perfectly happy for public hospitals to start offering terminations.


6 months. Out in 4. Yeah... that should teach him...

*shrug* He didn't get a huge sentence. He was still held responsible for his actions. It's a start.


For real! LOL A mistake?! One doesn't "flee" the scene of a "mistake".

I see nothing to suggest that he fled the scene. He may have thought that she was going to be fine. It wouldn't be the first time a doctor made that mistake.

Do you know what his reason for going to San Francisco was? The purpose of the trip, not what you'd like to think he was thinking.


He left knowing he had pulled bowel into her uterus. And he "isn't sorry". Anyway, read the links for the former butchers, seems their mind set, while a little better than Steir, wasn't far off.

Not being sorry isn't right. But it's still entirely possible that he thought the problem had been rectified. It's not like he wandered off while she was still on the operating table... she was in recovery.


Oh, so you are prolife now? Since when?

I never said I was pro-life, either. But I don't "think it's OK to murder unborn babies." There are so many facets of that sentence that I disagree with.

firechyld
September 2nd, 2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

You said:


Here are some statistics-> Link (http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/shortage_provider.htm)

Thanks for that.


They contact places like Planned Parenthood.

Oh, OK. Is that the only way to get in touch with someone who'll perform a termination? You can't just get referred through a GP?

aharvey
September 3rd, 2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

You said:


Here are some statistics-> Link (http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/shortage_provider.htm)

Agent Smith,

I'm confused. Nowhere does that link provide any statistics that back up your claim that "most people performing abortions aren't doctors." It says that abortion providers are becoming scarcer and scarcer.

Nineveh
September 3rd, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

*sigh*

Are you going to actually provide me with information backing up your position, or are you going to (again) give me the runaround with "witty" comments that prove nothing?

I can't give you stats on legal abortion costing lives, I can only provide you instances where it has. Plannedbarrenhood doesn't like those stats, so good luck finding them.


If terminations were being performed in hospitals, these resources would be closer.

That's a really good argument to close the abortuaries.


I never said it should be ignored. Quite the contrary. You just objected to my use of the word "minor", although I believe it was used in context.

You argued that "minor perforations" are taken care of by the attending butcher. In the medical world I don't take issue with the many ways they describe a wound. However, your use was trying to down play the injuries that occur in abortuaries. To be quite honest, I don't believe they are equiped to take care of any emergency complications. In fact, the more I read from former abortuary workers, the more sure of that I am.


No, it's surgery. It's a surgical procedure. Whether it's "morally wrong" or not is irrelevant to that fact... by definition, a termination is a surgical procedure.

You are the only one who keeps bringing morals into this discussion.


Oh, and do you have a reference in which a termination facility offers a guarantee of a completely safe procedure? In Australia, the risks are made quite clear before one undergoes the surgery.

I bet thay are now. Especially after losing the informed concent suit. Of course they tell victims there are minimal risks, but that is secondary to how safe it is now that it's legal. We don't have informed concent across the board here.


What do you mean by "demand"? Over here, termination is just another service offered by some OB GYNs, but not by non-OB GYNs. *shrug* We don't really have an abortion debate. At all.

I was trying to look up the requirements for those who butcher in Austrailia, it seems you guys basically acquiesce to Brittish law on the issue.


I'm pointing out that complications arise in any form of surgery. You seem to think that this is a moot point unless the complications are identical. Well, that's just not going to be the case unless the surgeries are also identical.

I'm sorry the other medical procedures you wanted to bring up don't have the same risks or the same degree of risks. Maybe you need to pick better type of procedures to use in your examples.

Something along the lines of a "blind" elective surgery.


Give me figures. How many women in any given year have died because of complications during a pregnancy termination that can be specifically tied to "gross negligence" on the part of the surgeon?

Steir for sure. But I dare you to find stats like that. The closest I could give you would be the resulting lawsuits. And even then, only as I come across them.

It's odd... Almost any health related issue can be found at the CDC, including the stats for mortality, but the info for abortion is conspicuously missing.


And don't bring up the "liberal conspiracy". It's laughable.

The info on mortality related to abortion stops at 1998/1999 according to the CDC. Liberal conspiracy? Nah.. I think plannedbarrenhood isn't willing to share info.


Again, I asked you for specific information, and you give me the runaround... this time with insults.

From former abortuaty workers I have read where one butcher hospitalized about one victim a month. But of course, that's ancidotal. These stats don't exist. Now, either you can believe it's because no one ever gets mamed or dies, -OR- there is some silence on this issue that is deafening.


I'm sorry, but it sounds like an urban legend to me.

It sounds like you don't really want to know.


Why would people performing these procedures in a country which is in the middle of the biggest abortion debate on the planet act in such a way, when it clearly undermines the acceptability of their position?

Steir did it because he was already on probation since 1988.


Why would they knowingly give such ammunition to the pro-life movement?

What ammo? You mean all those stats anyone can look up and read? Steir got 4 months for murder. Even when a butcher is caught red handed it means little in the debate, because the very most important thing of all is "a woman's right to choose murder". The reality isn't all that important.


More importantly, why would they willingly and knowingly let women die when their main motivation appears to be providing a service that they consider to be the right of that woman?

Like I said, in Steir's case it was to cover his own bottom.


Ooh... that's quite clever of them. :) Pro-life propaganda cunningly disguised as a service for women who are clearly pro-choice. I like it.

Obviously you would make light of how hard it actually is for mamed women to recieve damages using the law.


*shrug* He didn't get a huge sentence. He was still held responsible for his actions. It's a start.

A "start" for what? Four months for gross neglegence. Sounds like it's a start for less penalty for murder to me.

"In an interview with the publication Inland Empire, Steir said, "My incarceration proved nothing." He maintained he was guilty only of failing "to make the diagnosis of her (Hamptlon's) condition."

(Even though during the procedure he said, "I think I pulled bowel" then got on a plane and left)

"I'm absolutely not sorry," he told the Inland Empire. "I'm sorry I ended up in jail. I'm sorry I had to surrender my license and I'm sorry a woman died. I would like not to have done that abortion that day." cite (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17967)


I see nothing to suggest that he fled the scene. He may have thought that she was going to be fine. It wouldn't be the first time a doctor made that mistake.

I hope you read that whole cited link above. Your statement sounds ludicrous compared to the events.


I never said I was pro-life, either. But I don't "think it's OK to murder unborn babies." There are so many facets of that sentence that I disagree with.

When isn't it "ok" to murder the unborn in your view?

For your edification, I am going to post this link about Joy Davis (http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/davis.htm). Of course, you are free to discount her witness of events. I Googled her name and have not come accross any info discounting her story, however.

Free-Agent Smith
September 3rd, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Agent Smith,

I'm confused. Nowhere does that link provide any statistics that back up your claim that "most people performing abortions aren't doctors." It says that abortion providers are becoming scarcer and scarcer.
That is my mistake I found out later that even though the doctors who perform abortions are becoming scarce, 43 states require a licensed physican to perform or at least be present.

Free-Agent Smith
September 3rd, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Oh, OK. Is that the only way to get in touch with someone who'll perform a termination? You can't just get referred through a GP?
I don't know of any general practioner that would refer anyone to an abortionist. Then again I don't know them all.