- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To all the pro-lifers with the signs
To all the pro-lifers with the signsFollow
So wait, Ambrya gave you facts which you refused to read, but you expect us to read your crap? Uh uh if you want to throw your "facts" in and expect anyone to take notice you better read others as well. Your comment smelled of ignorance and refusing to even check the facts on all sides.
I did read his site, thats how in my last post I was able to refer to the percentages in his site.
I think I am going to start a study to see how many times liberals on these forums use the word ignorant or ignorance in their posts, it is really getting annoying you, and predictable. I guess they just need prove to everyone how intelligent they are and how oblivious to the obvious everyone else is.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:26:08 2005 by PraetorianX
Quote:
Your comment smelled of ignorance and refusing to even check the facts on all sides.
I think I am going to start a study to see how many times liberals on these forums use the word ignorant or ignorance in their posts, it is really getting annoying you, and predictable. I guess they just need prove to everyone how intelligent they are and how oblivious to the obvious everyone else is.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:26:08 2005 by PraetorianX
Quote:
I did not feel like reading an entire site of 43 pgs worth of text, I also did not see your link.
If you did not see her link, why dont you go back and look for it before youc ontinue. Shes giving you facts from her careers education. The least you can do is actually take the time to check it out.
PraetorianX wrote:
I did read his site, thats how in my last post I was able to refer to the percentages in his site.
I think I am going to start a study to see how many times liberals on these forums use the word ignorant or ignorance in their posts, it is really getting annoying you, and predictable. I guess they just need prove to everyone how intelligent they are and how oblivious to the obvious everyone else is.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:26:08 2005 by PraetorianX
Quote:
Your comment smelled of ignorance and refusing to even check the facts on all sides.
I think I am going to start a study to see how many times liberals on these forums use the word ignorant or ignorance in their posts, it is really getting annoying you, and predictable. I guess they just need prove to everyone how intelligent they are and how oblivious to the obvious everyone else is.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:26:08 2005 by PraetorianX
We would not have to use the word so much if there was not such an abundance of it. If it annoys you, then it is obivously striking a nerve.
Their is no easy answer to this situation, because for every opinion or view their is an example that people can use to back up their beliefs. The bottom line is that it is a wrenching decission that is between the women and who ever she decides to confer with. It may be the father, it may be her family, friends, or the pastor. She may just talk to the dog.
I have never seen though someone come to the clinic happy and excited that they have chosen an abortion. Nor have I seen them leave in a jubliant mood. This is a hard road to walk, and until you have made the journey yourself, you are only speculating about the rest. This procedure isn't without risk to the mother either, so I doubt that it is most women's back up plan so they can have unfettered sex.
If the pro-life organization put their money into adopting children, and helping with education, I might not see so many young women make this decission.
I have never seen though someone come to the clinic happy and excited that they have chosen an abortion. Nor have I seen them leave in a jubliant mood. This is a hard road to walk, and until you have made the journey yourself, you are only speculating about the rest. This procedure isn't without risk to the mother either, so I doubt that it is most women's back up plan so they can have unfettered sex.
If the pro-life organization put their money into adopting children, and helping with education, I might not see so many young women make this decission.
Here child let me help:
Anyway, what annoys me is the extent of your creativity in trying to denounce other peoples' posts by calling them ignorant. It becomes tiresome and you are a bore. When the only remark you can throw at me to try and prove that you are an authority on whatever you are talking about is that I am ignorant and you are smart I become bored and annoyed.
You flatter yourself when you think you have "struck a nerve" by calling someone ignorant on a chat forum. You are very insecure about your knowledge, which is why you are eager to tell someone that you are smarter than they are, and you are ready to do this at the first sign someone appears to have made a mistake (in your opinion) in their post.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:43:00 2005 by PraetorianX
Quote:
I did go back and read that site and the single thing that stood out the most to me is that there are approximately 1.4 million abortions every year in the United States.... I had no idea that it was that high. How can you regard this as a good thing?
Your site failed to mention what types of abortions occur and when during the gestation period. Let's go over it shall we?
Your site failed to mention what types of abortions occur and when during the gestation period. Let's go over it shall we?
Anyway, what annoys me is the extent of your creativity in trying to denounce other peoples' posts by calling them ignorant. It becomes tiresome and you are a bore. When the only remark you can throw at me to try and prove that you are an authority on whatever you are talking about is that I am ignorant and you are smart I become bored and annoyed.
You flatter yourself when you think you have "struck a nerve" by calling someone ignorant on a chat forum. You are very insecure about your knowledge, which is why you are eager to tell someone that you are smarter than they are, and you are ready to do this at the first sign someone appears to have made a mistake (in your opinion) in their post.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 19:43:00 2005 by PraetorianX
Quote:
If the pro-life organization put their money into adopting children, and helping with education, I might not see so many young women make this decission.
First of all this the worst example I have yet seen supporting pro-choice. So if we start adopting more children and spend more tax dollars on education then there will be less unintended pregnancies and less abortion? Not following your logic there.
Quote:
This procedure isn't without risk to the mother either, so I doubt that it is most women's back up plan so they can have unfettered sex.
Well I am using Ambrya's site here for this one. There are 0.6 deaths of the mother for every 100,000 abortions performed, so what was that again about the risk involved? The risk of giving birth to a baby is 11 times greater for death rate than having an abortion performed. So I just destroyed that argument.
Another point about education and lack of it being the reason why people are having abortions. Education has a direct correlation to the household income. 24.6% of all abortions performed are done for people that are in the bracket of making 300% or more above the national poverty level. 18% of abortions are for people in the 200%-299% level above poverty line. 30.8% are done for people 100%-199% above the poverty level. Anyway just thought you should know the facts.
P.S. here is what the liberals here would say at this point: Your ignorance smells of a putrid disease. Please suffocate yourself immediately, I am an authority on these subjects and you cannot hold an argument with me because you do not have my educational background. pwned.
Quote:
Medicine is not your field, death is. Please do no procreate any beings on this planet.
I noticed you failed to cite an actual SOURCE for your "information." Maybe because you know www.prolifewackoes.org might suffer a bit in the credibility department when the readers discover the page advocating the murder of abortion providers. Again, I provide impartial facts, you provide hysterical propaganda. Case closed.
Your description of salinization is a crock of ****. It's a flat-out lie. I described how salinization ACTUALLY works in my post. Refer to that if you want to see the actual FACTS, rather than hysterical fiction.
You call me "you sick *****" after chastising ME for resorting to insults. Pot, meet kettle.
You are so far out of your league, you conveniently forget to address the fact that, as I have stated before, I will before shortly be a Certified Nurse Midwife (that is a bit more specific than "working in the medical field" but then, you probably are clueless as to what that means, as you are clueless about pretty much everything else.) My entire career will be BRINGING BABIES INTO THIS WORLD. So yeah, I think I know way more about the topic than you do. And if I hated babies, do you really think I would choose this career path. I chose this career path because I am enamored of the process of pregnancy. I think it's astonishing to see a human being develop and come into this world. Your attempts to villify me when I have already made it quite plain that I am not "pro-abortion" are pathetic attempts at character assassination. You can't top me on the actual facts, so instead you're going to try to make me the bad guy. Funny how, the more you fail, the more hostile you become.
I've already made my position and my reasons for it quite clear. I don't love the idea of abortion, but even less do I love the idea of women dying because it's illegal. Even less than that do I love the idea of YOU, some asshat stranger, making it your business what happens in my body or anyone elses.
So, back to my field of expertise: what is a CNM? It's a Nurse Practitioner (a nurse who studies first to get her Bachelors of Science in Nursing and then procedes to study for two-three more years for a Masters of Science) who specializes in gynecology and obstetrics, with an emphasis on caring for pregnant women and tending women through childbirth. In short, I will be doing pretty much everything an ob/gyn M.D. does with the exception of surgical procedures. I will most likely have my own medical practice.
Get this through your head: women's health issues are my specialty. Particularly those relating to pregnancy and childbirth and the issues that surround them. Those are the issues I have studied all these years, I am surrounded on a daily basis by women seeking gynecological and obstetric care and those who provide such services in my practicum.
I don't care who your sister's husband or your aunt are. YOU are an idiot who doesn't know jack **** about women's health issues. I have made an extensive study out of them and they will be the focus of my career. I'm not calling your family anything, but I am indubitably calling YOU a moron.
Lest someone actually be deceived by the fiction you posted earlier, here are descriptions of how abortion techniques are actually performed, from the same textbook I used before.
Quote:
Vacuum Aspiration
The vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed before 12 weeks of gestation by vacuum aspiration (editorial comment: according to the Guttmacher's page linked above, that would be 90%) also called vacuum curettage. Only a local anesthetic is required to perform this procedure. The cervix is dilated using graduated metal dilators. Alternatively, laminaria, a highly absorbent seaweed, is used. IT is placed in the cervical opening and, as it absorbs moisture, it expands, causing the cervic to dilate. Although using laminaria is less painful and safer, 12-24 hours are required to achieve maximum dilation with this method. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the actual abortion takes place in about 10 minutes. A thin tube connected to a suction pump is inserted through the cervix into the uterus (editorial comment: so much for the "knife-edged" tip). The tube is the used to suction (aspirate) the uterine lining. The fetus is removed with the lining.
Dilation and Evacuation
Dilation and evacuation, also referred to as D&E, is conducted on women who are in the early second trimester (13-16 weeks). editorial comment: so much for your "95% of abortions" claim, according to Guttmacher, only 6.2% of abortions happen from 12-15 weeks, and even less afterward.) As with vacuum aspiration, the cervix is dilated and the contents of the uterus are aspirated; however, the inner walls of the uterus are then scraped with a metal curette to ensure complete removal of the contents.
The vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed before 12 weeks of gestation by vacuum aspiration (editorial comment: according to the Guttmacher's page linked above, that would be 90%) also called vacuum curettage. Only a local anesthetic is required to perform this procedure. The cervix is dilated using graduated metal dilators. Alternatively, laminaria, a highly absorbent seaweed, is used. IT is placed in the cervical opening and, as it absorbs moisture, it expands, causing the cervic to dilate. Although using laminaria is less painful and safer, 12-24 hours are required to achieve maximum dilation with this method. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the actual abortion takes place in about 10 minutes. A thin tube connected to a suction pump is inserted through the cervix into the uterus (editorial comment: so much for the "knife-edged" tip). The tube is the used to suction (aspirate) the uterine lining. The fetus is removed with the lining.
Dilation and Evacuation
Dilation and evacuation, also referred to as D&E, is conducted on women who are in the early second trimester (13-16 weeks). editorial comment: so much for your "95% of abortions" claim, according to Guttmacher, only 6.2% of abortions happen from 12-15 weeks, and even less afterward.) As with vacuum aspiration, the cervix is dilated and the contents of the uterus are aspirated; however, the inner walls of the uterus are then scraped with a metal curette to ensure complete removal of the contents.
Notes of interest:
--No "knife-edged tip" According to www.m-w.com, a curette is "a surgical instrument that has a scoop, ring, or loop at the tip and is used in performing curettage." Furthermore, if the instrument were "knife-edged" there would be uterine trauma. Learn to separate the hype from the facts and you'll come out looking a lot less foolish.
--No forceps (with teeth, no less!) are used in either of these two procedures, much less to the rend the fetus limb from limb and crush it.
--Reality check: at 16 weeks, the fetus is only less than 2 inches long. At 12 weeks, it's only about an inch long, an inch and a half tops. In other words, the fetus is the size of a large beetle.
--No where on the site I linked does it say that D&E is 95% of abortions performed. Vacuum aspiration accounts for over 90% and D&E for around 6%. Don't claim you didn't read the site then pretend to offer statistics from it.
In other words, the "facts" you offered in your post were nothing more than hysterical tripe. If you are going to try to sway someone with your "knowledge" do at least TRY to get your facts straight.
Edited, Mon Jul 4 21:49:33 2005 by Ambrya
Edited, Mon Jul 4 21:59:55 2005 by Ambrya
Are you sure you are in the right profession? Most of the information given to me about the procedures used for abortion were given to me by my aunt and my sister. My aunt is in the EXACT same field as you. She has been delivering babies for 25 years. So don't go flaming about your knowledge to me, I could care less, you are obviously misinformed.
Wrong, dead wrong. Did you just not go to class or something? At 3 months (12 weeks) the fetus is aboug 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Fingernails and bones can be seen. At 16 weeks the fetus is 8 inches long and weighs about a half of a pound. I don't know what school you have been going to but you are full of sh't.
The fact of the matter is that you would rather see 1 million + abortions every year than promiscuous mothers die at their conscious actions. Maybe if it was a direct tradeoff that 1 million+ mothers would be dying of birth complications because abortion is illegal I could see your point. But that is not the case.
Preserving humanity IS my business. That is the reason we live in a democracy. I can VOTE to stop this or new judges can be appointed to the supreme court to overrule it.
Because before 23-24 weeks a fetus cannot survive on its own even with the aid of technology, you declare it to be a part of you, like your arm or leg or something. That's the biggest crock I have ever heard. I suppose if technology improves in the future and a fetus can be nourished and cared for with the aid of machines at say 8 weeks then I guess the fetus is only a part of you for the first 8 weeks of gestation. Your logic makes no sense. 100 years ago this technology didn't exist, so by your thinking you could abort a fetus at any given time during pregnancy, because there would be no technology to keep it alive during those 9 months.
So your stance changes depending on the level of technology available. I guess my only hope is that one day a fetus can be kept alive from a zygote all the way to the end of the 9 months. Then abortion would be completely illegal.
Quote:
--Reality check: at 16 weeks, the fetus is only less than 2 inches long. At 12 weeks, it's only about an inch long, an inch and a half tops. In other words, the fetus is the size of a large beetle.
Wrong, dead wrong. Did you just not go to class or something? At 3 months (12 weeks) the fetus is aboug 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Fingernails and bones can be seen. At 16 weeks the fetus is 8 inches long and weighs about a half of a pound. I don't know what school you have been going to but you are full of sh't.
The fact of the matter is that you would rather see 1 million + abortions every year than promiscuous mothers die at their conscious actions. Maybe if it was a direct tradeoff that 1 million+ mothers would be dying of birth complications because abortion is illegal I could see your point. But that is not the case.
Quote:
I've already made my position and my reasons for it quite clear. I don't love the idea of abortion, but even less do I love the idea of women dying because it's illegal. Even less than that do I love the idea of YOU, some asshat stranger, making it your business what happens in my body or anyone elses.
Preserving humanity IS my business. That is the reason we live in a democracy. I can VOTE to stop this or new judges can be appointed to the supreme court to overrule it.
Because before 23-24 weeks a fetus cannot survive on its own even with the aid of technology, you declare it to be a part of you, like your arm or leg or something. That's the biggest crock I have ever heard. I suppose if technology improves in the future and a fetus can be nourished and cared for with the aid of machines at say 8 weeks then I guess the fetus is only a part of you for the first 8 weeks of gestation. Your logic makes no sense. 100 years ago this technology didn't exist, so by your thinking you could abort a fetus at any given time during pregnancy, because there would be no technology to keep it alive during those 9 months.
So your stance changes depending on the level of technology available. I guess my only hope is that one day a fetus can be kept alive from a zygote all the way to the end of the 9 months. Then abortion would be completely illegal.
Tell us more about how you're a flaming queen.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
PraetorianX wrote:
is 8 inches long and weighs about a half of a pound.
????
Edited, Tue Jul 5 13:34:38 2005 by bhodisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
Wrong, dead wrong. Did you just not go to class or something? At 3 months (12 weeks) the fetus is aboug 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Fingernails and bones can be seen. At 16 weeks the fetus is 8 inches long and weighs about a half of a pound. I don't know what school you have been going to but you are full of sh't.
Again, I notice you fail to actually cite your source. Maybe it's because you are making this crap up on the fly, or wherever you are getting your information from isn't an unbiased, impartial source.
From the same book I used before:
Chapter 9: Conception, Pregnancy, and Childbirth, p. 250
Quote:
The Fetus
...By the end of the 16th week, the fetus has many human physical characteristics, including fingernails, eyelids, and genitals; thus, the sex of the child can be determined even though the fetus is less than 2 inches long.
Babies born prematurely at 20 weeks aren't even 8 inches long, you dolt. Your aunt, if she even exists, needs to brush up on her info.
Funny how your "facts" from your aunt and sister (who happened to conveniently be in the medical profession after I made it known I was, and now, lo and behold, the aunt is a midwife! But only after I explained what one was...) could have been cut and pasted off a pro-life website.
The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has a display on fetal development that includes preserved, miscarried (not aborted, they had a big sign making that clear) fetuses at every week of development. When I had a houseguest visiting a couple weeks ago, we went, and yes, the 16 week fetus was about two inches long. In fact, I remember being surprised by how small it was.
If my human sexuality textbook isn't good enough for you, I can haul out my anatomy and physiology textbook, but really, I'd rather not, because it's at the bottom of a box right now.
edit: Ok, I hauled it out, because I was curious, and there really isn't anything I can quote, because the stages of fetal development are in a table rather than in text. But according to my A&P book, Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, Tenth Edition by Gerard J. Tortora and Sandra Reynolds Grabowski, at 13-16 weeks the fetus is 6.5 inches long, and weighs about 4 ounces. That is MUCH larger than the miscarried fetus I saw at OMSI, so I'm going to look into some other texts and see if they can explain the discrepancy.
According to BabyCenter at 4 months the fetus is 4.5 inches long. Pretty much every site I have visited has a different claim. None of them, however, say 8 inches or half a pound. Most are around 5-6 inches and 5 oz.
So, I am willing to concede my original source, my human sexuality textbook, underestimated the size of the fetus. But you are still way overestimating.
The rest of you message is just hyterical ranting as you try, once again, to turn the topic to an angle more advantageous to yourself, and therefore not worth bothering with. What goes on inside my body is none of your business, no matter how you justify it.
Edited, Tue Jul 5 14:52:09 2005 by Ambrya
Ambrya wrote:
So, I am willing to concede my original source, my human sexuality textbook, underestimated the size of the fetus. But you are still way overestimating.
Not your fault though Ambrya. Unfortunately, both sides of the argument will tend to distort facts a bit to make their points. The textbook was probably based on the size of miscarried 16 week fetuses, which likely would be smaller then healthy ones.
So the textbook (which likely was written by someone with a bias toward the pro-choice position) used the "smallest" examples at that age and presented it as "typical". And the pro-life source he's quoting presumably took the "largest" size instead. The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle (and I agree that the anatomy book is likely to be most accurate since it presumably wasn't written with any specific field in mind and therefore has no bias).
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 269
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To all the pro-lifers with the signs
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC