Game Over, Hillary

[Shogun]

No, Allie said this: "If you can't come up with situations that prove that it happens regularly, and that women who are medically fragile will be "forced" to have babies that will kill them, spit them out, or shut the fuck up about this imaginary scenario."

So allie is willing to kill the occasional woman who needs the procedure because her situation is not a regular occurence.

is that any MORE villainous than your absolute disregard for the genetic individual life scraped away for sexual irresponsibility since the 70s?


an appeal to emotion LAWYER? really?

 

[Shogun]

Which is why only DOCTORS should make medical decisions with their patients.

DOCTORS are regulated, jill. DOCTORS can't just start giving fucking oxycontin out like candy just because they think a person should have a RIGHT to meds.



damn.. thats GOTTA be neg rep worthy!

 

[jillian]

Do you think that the more stupid garbage you spew, the more "shocking" you try to be, that you show any indication that you actually have any understanding of an issue?

so far you've said absolutely nothing...

but that's because all you have for your absrud "arguments" are nothing....

and i wouldn't complain about negging if i were you.... it's not like you don't return it. mine is just more effective. like I said, she who giveth can taketh away

 

[Ravi]

If the mother's life might be in danger, and the doctor performs a partial birth abortion, how do we know for sure that the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother as provided by the statute?

We only have certainity if no abortion is done. If the abortion is done and the mother lives, it becomes a factual issue as to necessity. That means an aggressive prosecutor could indict and try every doctor who performs the surgery, and make him prove necessity to a jury. The risk of prosecution will deter doctors; how many will resolve any doubt in favor of greater risk to the mother? And how many of those women will die because the doctor was afraid to perform the procedure that could have saved her life?

I'm glad I'm not an ob/gyn.

 

[AllieBaba]

DOCTORS are regulated, jill. DOCTORS can't just start giving fucking oxycontin out like candy just because they think a person should have a RIGHT to meds.



damn.. thats GOTTA be neg rep worthy!

Not only that, the doctors can prescribe all they want...but the pharmacists won't refill willy-nilly because the insurance companies won't let them.

It really sucks for the poor slobs who have horrible tooth pain because they are on welfare and have to depend on the state to provide their dental care. When you have an abcess and have to wait 6 weeks between your initial check up, and another 6 weeks after that to get the tooth pulled, you're shit out of luck if you use up your vicadin and get to get accused of "drug seeking".

No shit, sherlock. Fix the fucking tooth and they'd quit seeking the drug!
Sorry, sore subject. This is why so many people dependent upon state medical end up getting drunk and having a buddy pull their teeth.

 

[Ravi]

not at all. Im clarifying my position before your ad hominem machine can take another lesson from jillian.


Again, what more harm can your coathanger do to a dead fetus? And, how REFLECTIVE of the general abortion procedures happening is the scenario you presented?


Or, if that gets to deep for ya just call me a woman hating man beast and be done with it. I told you yesterday, you've got the substance of a fucking rice cake.

Larkinn asked you this

So because a woman fucks someone, gets pregnant, wants to have the baby she should somehow be responsible for dying? For nothing? She should die, even if the baby will die?

You replied

tell it to the zipper, bitch.




I took your answer to mean that yes, the woman should die even if it was known that the baby would die anyway.

Is that what you meant to say or not?

 

[Ravi]

No, Allie said this: "If you can't come up with situations that prove that it happens regularly, and that women who are medically fragile will be "forced" to have babies that will kill them, spit them out, or shut the fuck up about this imaginary scenario."

So allie is willing to kill the occasional woman who needs the procedure because her situation is not a regular occurence.

Good point, I missed that.

 

[Shogun]

Do you think that the more stupid garbage you spew, the more "shocking" you try to be, that you show any indication that you actually have any understanding of an issue?

so far you've said absolutely nothing...

but that's because all you have for your absrud "arguments" are nothing....

and i wouldn't complain about negging if i were you.... it's not like you don't return it. mine is just more effective. like I said, she who giveth can taketh away

hey.. like I said.. demonize whoever you need to since you clearly can't argue the issue. It's cool. Now you've got dogger to add to your greek chorus possy


indeed, SO FAR, i've been posting more evidence beyond yur conveluded rant against Scalia types and pompous "im a lawyer so there" bullshit.

and, you'll see what "nothing" looks like after the backswing of this pendelus sends you into a manic vaginal frenzy.

indeed, I do return it.. I just don't rely on it to make a point that my post in a thread can already handle. Indeed, if you think i'm crying about your weighted rep then I have a whole new layer of comedy to be laughing at right now.


now, go ahead and wield your NEG REP, mod. Yuu might as well change your name to Alucard.

 

[Shogun]

Larkinn asked you this
So because a woman fucks someone, gets pregnant, wants to have the baby she should somehow be responsible for dying? For nothing? She should die, even if the baby will die?
You replied
tell it to the zipper, bitch.
I took your answer to mean that yes, the woman should die even if it was known that the baby would die anyway.
Is that what you meant to say or not?

My position is the great abortion compromise. You can interpret that however you need to. IF it were the case that a mother will die because she's got a dead baby in her then you aren't even debating pro-lifers anymore. OF COURSE dead babies get removed. But, that's not at all reflective of those who are NOW getting abortions, are they?

I fully expect that have to reiterate that in 35 posts when you've come back to insisting that I like killing women because you don't have an arguement outside of a vaginal crusade.

 

[Ravi]

My position is the great abortion compromise. You can interpret that however you need to. IF it were the case that a mother will die because she's got a dead baby in her then you aren't even debating pro-lifers anymore. OF COURSE dead babies get removed. But, that's not at all reflective of those who are NOW getting abortions, are they?

I fully expect that have to reiterate that in 35 posts when you've come back to insisting that I like killing women because you don't have an arguement outside of a vaginal crusade.

So now you're afraid to answer the question.

Big surprise.

 

[Shogun]

I answered the question.

clearly.


Is it my fault that my response doesn't match your man hating bullshit?

 

[Ravi]

I answered the question.

clearly.


Is it my fault that my response doesn't match your man hating bullshit?

Coward

 

[Shogun]

deluded, ignorant bitch.

 

[Care4all]

There is one condition that I am aware of where women seek partial birth abortion and that is when the fetus has a form of encephilitus I believe, that swells the fetus's head by minimum 10-100 fold with water....this occurs after the 4th month of gestation...the only procedure that was available to her outside of an intrusive C-section, to deliver her baby intact, so that she and her husband can mourn the baby and bury the baby, is the procedure labeled as partial birth abortion. This procedure sucks the water along with the brains out of the child thru a seringe or suction, which allows this grossly oversized head to be reduced enough in size for the mother to be to abort out of the birth canal.

Since this procedure was banned, even for the "health" of the mother, this woman now has to choose between having a risky and intrusive c-section where she no longer on future children would be able to deliver naturally, but ALWAYS be forced in to a c-section OR...

OR.....or she has to choose the abortion procedure WHICH IS STILL LEGAL, that goes inside her uterus and cuts her baby up in to pieces, pulling and sucking each limb and body part out piece by piece.

Now, if I were this woman, and my baby suffered from this disease, and I had to abort for these medical reasons, and I were not allowed to have a partial birth abortion under those circumstances, I would be pretty damn pissed.

What is shameful is that the abortion procedure that is still allowed in the later months is much more abusive and horrible a death than the partial birth abortion procedure in my opinion....

Care

 

[Shogun]

yea.. it's also a bummer that an astounding minority of instances in which the mother's life is at peril seems to validate the open season on baby killing for some.


Again, were it only the case that the only abortions happening were those that were performed for the sake of the others life. You might just find less resistance if it were not clear that these non-sequiters are nothing more than an excuse for baby season.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is one condition that I am aware of where women seek partial birth abortion and that is when the fetus has a form of encephilitus I believe, that swells the fetus's head by minimum 10-100 fold with water....this occurs after the 4th month of gestation...the only procedure that was available to her outside of an intrusive C-section, to deliver her baby intact, so that she and her husband can mourn the baby and bury the baby, is the procedure labeled as partial birth abortion. This procedure sucks the water along with the brains out of the child thru a seringe or suction, which allows this grossly oversized head to be reduced enough in size for the mother to be to abort out of the birth canal.

Since this procedure was banned, even for the "health" of the mother, this woman now has to choose between having a risky and intrusive c-section where she no longer on future children would be able to deliver naturally, but ALWAYS be forced in to a c-section OR...

OR.....or she has to choose the abortion procedure WHICH IS STILL LEGAL, that goes inside her uterus and cuts her baby up in to pieces, pulling and sucking each limb and body part out piece by piece.

Now, if I were this woman, and my baby suffered from this disease, and I had to abort for these medical reasons, and I were not allowed to have a partial birth abortion under those circumstances, I would be pretty damn pissed.

What is shameful is that the abortion procedure that is still allowed in the later months is much more abusive and horrible a death than the partial birth abortion procedure in my opinion....

Care

Show me the clause in the law banning partial birth abortion where it says it can't be used in that instance.

It's "hydrocephalitis". Water on the brain. Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain lining. I think. (Wouldn't want Jillie to think I'm "lying" if my medical terms aren't precise).

 

[Care4all]

Show me the clause in the law banning partial birth abortion where it says it can't be used in that instance.

It's "hydrocephalitis". Water on the brain. Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain lining. I think. (Wouldn't want Jillie to think I'm "lying" if my medical terms aren't precise).

thanks for the name of it!!!

The bill makes NO EXCEPTIONS for the health of the mother, this INCLUDES this procedure for this circumstance.

Banning partial birth abortion does not ban abortions during later terms, just this particular procedure, so NOT ONE abortion was eliminated by this ban....just want to make certain the prolifers here understand this....nothing was "won" as they seem to proclaim, unless they consider a ruling on a piece of paper a win? Cuz to me a win should be to them, a life saved....but heh, I digress again.........

Yes, there are no health exceptions, NONE. So this woman will have to get her baby cut up in to pieces, then sucked out or be forced in to a c-section.

This is why I believe there should have been a "health" exception....it may be that the mother to be does not mind being cut up and have a c-section, but it could be that she does mind, and wants to deliver a natural healthy child some time in the future...should her health be compromised?

jd

 

[AllieBaba]

Hydrocephalus.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163
"In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.

Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.

July-March 2002: The House of Representatives passes a revised version of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The Senate passes a version, too.

And here's the exception:
"iv) The upshot is a District Court finding that D&X obviates health risks in certain circumstances, a highly plausible record-based explanation of why that might be so, a division of medical opinion over whether D&X is generally safer, and an absence of controlled medical studies that would help answer these medical questions. Given these circumstances, the Court believes the law requires a health exception."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html

The ban on partial birth abortions does NOT apply to the three women a year who would die hideous deaths giving birth to monster gollum children, or who can be guaranteed to die hideous deaths if "forced" to use an alternate method of abortion.

Face it. People cling to partial birth abortion because they like the idea of being able to kill babies after they're born. But the clause is there to allow the few who are at risk if they have a c-section (I don't know who that would be, it's generally more dangerous to mother and child to deliver vaginally than by c-section at any rate...) Despite the fact that there is no reliable medical information that proves the point that it's necessary, just in case, it's there anyway.

 

[Shogun]

Health be compromised?

funny, I would ask the same thing about the life of dead babies.


I guess it's time to give a little and take a little, eh?

 

[Ravi]

Care, I read an article that say doctors get around this by administering drugs to the fetus so it isn't considered "alive" when it is removed.

I don't know how true it is, the law is pretty murky to me. I don't know if a woman would be allowed to abort if there was a 50/50 chance that she'd die if she brought the baby to term or not.

Apparently there are those among us that have no regard for living women, because they choose to have sex they must die if it comes to it.

Kind of funny that at the same time it's okay (acccording to these same people) to smoke around pregnant women because the women can choose to leave the area (though of course the fetus can not).