XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.flame.bill-clint
n.abortion.partial-birth
XPost: alt.support.abortion
From: wxpprofessional@msn.com
"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
news:1139418332.154821.115010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Johnny wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" wrote in message
>> news:1139348795.215056.225670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Johnny wrote:
>> >> "Mark Sebree" wrote in message
>> >> news:1139346829.682781.53040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Johnny wrote:
>> >> >> Since the judges who ruled that partial birth abortions are
>> >> >> unconstitutional, we know where to look for the culprits of these
>> >> >> fires.
>> >> >
>> >> > Among the anti-choice people that you adore would be a good start.
>> >>
>> >> Stop trying to shift the blame, asshole.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am not shifting the blame. The fires that you want to throw people
>> > into should have people like anti-choice advocates and bigots like you
>> > thrown into it to start with.
>>
>> Why are you anti-choice when someone chooses not to be for abortion on
>> demand or gay marriages?
>
> I am not. If she does not want an abortion, or the homosexual couple
> does not want to get married, they do not have to. However, neither of
> their decisions should be bound by the opinions and beliefs of others.
> The woman's body is her own, and not someone else's. And homosexuals
> are supposed to have the same rights under the law as heterosexuals,
> which is why they should be able to marry the consenting adult adult of
> his or her choice, just as heterosexuals can. Your beliefs have no
> place in controlling and ruining their lives.
>
>>
>> >> > You don't even understand the reason why the acts were ruled
>> >> > unconstituional.
>> >>
>> >> I do understand.
>> >
>> > Then prove it by not stating that women should die.
>>
>> What women?
>
> The pregnant women that need the mid to late second trimester abortion
> for health reasons.
>
>> Women who get knocked up by you and your buddies?
>
> No. The woman that wanted to continue the pregnancy that she and
> likely her husband discussed and agreed that this was the right time
> for.
>
>>
>> > Try finding out WHY Intact Dialation and Extractions are done, and then
>> > try giving some
>> > alternatives that do not result in the death of the woman.
>>
>> I know why they're done. They're done to kill the human that you do not
>> love, unless you are referring to a birthing procedure to dilate the
>> cervix
>> and then to extract the child from the mother's body..
>
> You obviously do not know why they are done, then. If the woman has
> continued the pregnancy this long, then the pregnancy was WANTED, and
> the woman expected to see it to completion. Without the procedure or
> one like it, she will DIE!
>
> They are done for one of only a handful of reason.
>
>>
>> > And yes, without the abortion, the woman will almost certainly die.
>>
>> Without a C-section i guess it would be more painful.
>
> C-section is not always an option, and ID&E is far less invasive and
> damaging to the woman, with a much lower recovery time. It makes no
> sense to do a c-section in the cases where a ID&E or D&E is done.
>
> The procedure is done before viability, so a c-section is unnecessarily
> invasion. Also, in most cases, the fetus is dead or non-viable, so
> there is nothing that would survive the c-section anyway. If the fetus
> is dead, then no removing it means that decomposes inside the woman,
> and thus threatens her health. If it is non-viable, then depending on
> the reason that it is non-viable determines the support of why the
> procedure it done. If the brain never properly developed and the skull
> is filled with fluid, then a later delivery is ill-advised because the
> resulting skull will never fit past the cervix, and it will be still
> born anyway. If the reason for non-viability is missing vital organs,
> then the infant will live only a few minutes to a few days at most, and
> suffer the entire time. And the couple will know this fate months in
> advance. They will suffer great emotional distress the entire time,
> because they know that the child that they wanted will not live past
> birth.
>
>>
>> > That is why she is getting the abortion.
>>
>> You forgot about CHOICE already?
>
> Nope.
>
>> Why are you now ignoring the choice platitude you like to use to hang all
>> abortions on?
>
> I am not. She can still choose to not get the procedure done, but she
> does so knowing full well what to expect and why the abortion is
> medically advisable. You, on the other hand, care nothing for the
> choices and health of others.
>
>>
>> > The other reason is that the fetus is
>> > already dead
>>
>> I know about stillbirth.
>
> But not about fetuses decomposing in the woman's body, and the harm
> that it can do to her. Not about women not being able to deliver
> because the fetus's head is twice its regular size and filled with
> fluid. Not about fetuses developing without vital organs, and thus not
> destined to live. Not about having to live with the knowledge that the
> fetus that you carry will never live on its own, and having to deal
> with the months of grief while waiting for the pregnancy to end before
> you can start healing.
>
>>
>> > and starting to decompose inside her body, another
>> > circumstance that can cause her death.
>>
>> Care to cite any instance of any stillbirth that caused any woman's
>> death?
>
> Can't look up the information yourself?
You're the one screeching the tune, so why can;t you cite real data aleady?
> You need to get your time frames right. ID&E and D&E are procedures
> done at ~ 5 mos. The line about the procedure being done just before
> birth is an anti-choice propaganda lie.
So, are these cites of specific instances of dead fetuses being extracted in
what you call an abortion?
Seems to me the pregnancy was already aborted in such a case since the baby
is no longer alive.
Why do you like the non-viable line when you know that the living fetus is
perfectly viable in its intended enviroment?
When people interfere with it in its intended environment there can be
problems.
How would you like people interfering with your body in its intended
environment?
> http://www.popline.org/docs/141363
> http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic558.htm
> http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/preeclampsia/index.php
> http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_pregnant/complcat.cfm
I looked into all those links.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
