Oklahoma vs women, disabled babies

The important thing is to make abortion even more traumatic for women:

HOUSTON — The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

So – doctors can deliberately misinform their patients in order to impose their personal view on abortion (with serious consequences in the case of defects that actually require additional support and treatment as birth approaches), and take away a woman’s rights to a legal procedure, and women must endure unnecessary and unwanted procedures designed to psychologically scar them as much as possible for daring to exercise control over their own bodies.

Quick vote: which is the more evil measure from an American state this week?

  • Arizona’s racist “papers please” law forcing police to harass anyone who isn’t Caucasian; or

  • Oklahoma’s “make women suffer” and “misinform patients” anti-abortion legislation?

The forces of spite and hatred are on the ascendency, clearly.

UPDATE: For those who are having difficulty with some basic English words:

A baby:

A child:

A collection of human cells after conception:

A right wing d*ckhead who doesn’t care how many women are psychologically scarred by his spiteful new law:

About these ads

47 responses to “Oklahoma vs women, disabled babies

  1. Wisdom Like Silence

    The fact that they want to make rape and incest victims be subjected to the same horrifyingly sadistic ordeal truly is the most disgusting measure out of that whole thing.

    Protect the babies, that’s fine. But don’t be cunts, try to reduce the levels of unwanted pregnancy through proper sex education and better contraception, not creating a generation of self-loathing parents and disaffected adopted or hated kids.

  2. I wonder how far the broader American community will allow this kind of shit to go?

    At some point enlightened Americans will stop simply rolling their eyes at what the Southern States are getting up to and decide that there is no place for this kind of rubbish in any part of the US.

    Cheers

  3. Wisdom Like Silence

    No they wont. And that is the crying shame, and the reason that these states are called the fly-over states. Insignificant little specks of retarded backwater people, but the thing is, this “sounds” (/sarcastica) reasonable (/sarcastica) to those people sitting on the fence. They aren’t banning it, they’re just scoping the loss the woman would incur.

    Realistically, the woman will incur severe psychological harm anyway, and this will only go toward deepening and magnifying the true chasm you feel afterwards.

  4. Jeremy
    You just hate this because it makes you lie that “unborn child is not a human being ” untenable .

  5. I hate it because it’s about bullying women. It’s about traumatising them as much as possible. It’s about denying them medical advice and care that they need – that, in fact, their future baby might need – in order to deny them their civil rights.

    And calling the other side of your “human life begins at conception” opinion a “lie” is astoundingly arrogant.

    Isn’t it interesting how the anti-women crowd call a collection of cells moments after conception a “human life” and a “baby” because potentially, everything going well, it “could” end up a baby? If we’re going down that line, it “could” end up anything.

    You could call the foetus a “potential Wall St banker” just as legitimately. Although that probably wouldn’t garner as much sympathy.

  6. Jeremy
    As you well know I think that abortion can ,on occasion, be justified. But I support this kind of prerequisite simply because it makes sure that any woman contemplating killing the unborn knows precisely what they are doing. Why do you object to there being truly informed consent?
    You and those of the same ilk want to play fast and lose with reality by creating a conceit that an unborn child’s humanity does not begin at conception. Just so that you can make abortion easier . Even justified killing should not be done lightly or without a true understanding of what you are killing,

  7. Hang on, when do you think a “child” begins? Conception? When?

    Also, this isn’t about “informed consent”. A woman undergoing an abortion knows precisely what she’s doing. This is about making it as traumatic as possible for her. It’s about turning the hospital into an anti-abortionist’s propaganda arm. It is, as the whole anti-abortion movement is, about forcing the woman to undergo a procedure against her will.

  8. Do you really think anyone thats had an abortion does it lightly and without a real understanding of what they are doing?

    And thats truly informed consent is it?

    Forcing the mother to describe the heart, head and the rest. You are joking. Thats buse.

    As if abortion isn’t traumatic enough.

    (And personally I’m opposed to abortion. I’m just more opposed to the government mandating to people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. Especially opposed to forcing someone’s body to become an incubating machine when they don’t want it to be.)

  9. “A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.”

    I really cannot fathom that this was passed.

    “Yes, we knew about the spina bifida but it’s your own fault for wanting a home birth – that’s why you nearly died.” or “I’m sorry the emergency surgery we had to perform to deliver your hydrocephalic baby means you can’t have any more children, but luckily you can’t sue me.”

  10. #

    #

    Jeremy

    Hang on, when do you think a “child” begins? Conception? When?

    From the moment that an entity has the DNA to define it as a member of a particular species it is whatever its DNA defines it to be.

    Also, this isn’t about “informed consent”. A woman undergoing an abortion knows precisely what she’s doing.

    Well this is where we part company Jeremy I argue that the pro abortion line about “a bunch of cells” is a conceit to dehumanize the unborn so that killing it becomes easier to justify and to minimize any guilt or regret. This is a way to be wilfully ignorant.

    This is about making it as traumatic as possible for her.

    It is a big deal to kill another human being and there is no reason to make it easier, if there are good enough reasons to do so then kill the unborn jut don’t let anyone who does so pretend that what they have done is nothing of consequence.

    It’s about turning the hospital into an anti-abortionist’s propaganda arm.

    Abortion should always be rare and only undertaken as a last resort so whay should it be easy or done without deep and considered thought?

    It is, as the whole anti-abortion movement is, about forcing the woman to undergo a procedure against her will.

    No one is forcing a woman to have an abortion Jeremy :roll: having choices does not require silence on the part of the medical profession about the nature of the choice s being considered.

    jules

    Do you really think anyone thats had an abortion does it lightly and without a real understanding of what they are doing?

    If they have been listening to the “just a bunch of cells ” argument I would say yes.

    Forcing the mother to describe the heart, head and the rest. You are joking. Thats abuse.

    It is not abuse to ensure that they accept the humanity of the child they wish to kill

    As if abortion isn’t traumatic enough.

    If abortion is too easy then no one would think twice about it and theta devalues us all as human beings .

    (And personally I’m opposed to abortion. I’m just more opposed to the government mandating to people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. Especially opposed to forcing someone’s body to become an incubating machine when they don’t want it to be.)

    Well if you oppose abortion why cant you be for truly informed consent?

  11. Blast Tyrant

    Iain “Even justified killing should not be done lightly or without a true understanding of what you are killing,”.
    Well put.
    However I doubt Iain takes the same time to “understand” the situations in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka before advocating people be sent back to these places where they may or may not be persecuted, imprisoned, killed, gang raped or tortured.
    I’ll also make the assumption that Iain was for the invasion of Iraq and the number of dead civilians that resulted from this doesn’t exactly keep Iain up at night…

    It also seems that the pro-lifers empathy for the child actually ends at birth.
    They certainly aren’t the same people advocating for better welfare, cheaper childcare or higher wages.
    There are going to be many expecting couples who’s income drops due to the economic crisis and will then be forced to have their child in poverty. This however, is not the concern of the anti choice brigade…

    I don’t know which to vote for – they’re both completely fucked.

  12. “From the moment that an entity has the DNA to define it as a member of a particular species it is whatever its DNA defines it to be. “

    A literal collection of cells, moments after conception, microscopic, impossible to see, with no organs, is a “child” to you? You were asked when you think a “child” begins, so is that your answer?

  13. Splatterbottom

    The science is clear. New life begins at conception. That is, a genetically distinct human being exists at that point.

    You can argue about the legal definition of “human being”, but from the scientific point of view, human life begins at conception.

  14. Jeremy
    Is the tiniest insect any less what it is due to its size?
    Of course not.
    By the same token a human being is a a human being from the moment it has a full set of human DNA .
    Abortion is essentially an issue of competing rights, the right of a child to not be arbitrarily killed competes with a a mothers right to personal autonomy.
    My position is that neither side of the argument has an unassailable case all of the time, but I would argue that further along that gestation goes the greater weight that should be given to the child’s right not to be killed. Making any woman contemplating an abortion see imagery of that child before it is killed is merely making an argument for that child’s life she is still free to kill it . Why would someone who makes their living as an advocate think that this is a bad thing?

  15. Because I don’t advocate for women to have their rights over their own bodies, to choose their own medical treatment, taken away from them.

  16. Update to the post, for those having difficulty with English words.

  17. don’t you understand the concept of competing rights Jeremy?

  18. Why, yes. And nobody has the “right” to make a woman undergo a medical procedure.

    Also, nice avoidance of explaining when you think a “child” begins. You referred to a foetus in the womb as a “child”.

    Can you seriously not tell the difference between this and this?

    Maybe anti-abortionists should be forced to look at pictures of women maimed in backyard abortions in states where abortion is illegal. Maybe they should be forced to look at pictures of cells that they claim are “children”.

  19. Jeremy an abortion is a medical procedure allowing a pregnancy to go to term is a natural biological process no medical intervention is necessary for the later. so you suggestion that a woman who is not having an abortion is a woman undergo a medical procedure. is just to ridiculous fro words, especially when you want to rely on semantic pedantry about when a child is a child.

    Also, nice avoidance of explaining when you think a “child” begins. You referred to a foetus in the womb as a “child”.

    I am only avoiding an argument about the semantics you wish to hide behind.

  20. This is what you are advocating for Jeremy
    http://www.jillstanek.com/malachi.jpg

  21. Splatterbottom

    The ‘backyard abortions’ argument is a crock. The question is whether and in what circumstances it is right to kill. Only then should you consider the benefits of providing a professional killing service.

    Blaming people who don’t want to kill for botched killings is as disingenuous as it is stupid.

  22. Controlling fertility has improved the lives of women, and children, around the world. Without that control, women face greater challenges; restricted access to education, reduced earning capacity, greater social welfare dependence or poverty – and that has a flow on effect for the children involved. Allowing access to contraception and abortion improves lives.
    To argue that showing a woman a bundle of cells the size of a lima bean should help her override her concerns about her health, her education, her financial or relationship status, her emotional health and her future is pretty frickin naive.

    And no child should ever be born just as punishment for having sex.

  23. The science is not so clear.

    The life begins at conception idea runs into problems with twinning and also means that every successful IVF treatment is at the cost of 10-15 ‘lives’.

    Life begins at gastrulation is a somewhat stronger position, but even then, a collection of cells should not win out over the right of a woman to be in control of her own body.

  24. Iain, you can’t tell the difference between the potential for life and a baby and between a baby and a child. If you want to be taken seriously and not be accused of dishonesty, use the correct terminology.

    And I love how you’re ignoring that this legislation provides protection for doctors who deliberately lie about the health of a fetus to impose their own belief systems on parents, yet demands that a woman be forced to undergo a possibly invasive medical procedure before termination.

  25. “so you suggestion that a woman who is not having an abortion is a woman undergo a medical procedure. is just to ridiculous fro words, “

    I think what you’re trying to say there is that an abortion is a medical procedure therefore we should be able to force a woman to undergo a quite different medical procedure. Hey, she’s consented to one!

    That is ridiculous.

    “you want to rely on semantic pedantry about when a child is a child. “

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but you think a collection of human cells immediately after conception is a “child”.

    “This is what you are advocating for Jeremy”

    Since that sort of abortion would only ever happen in extreme circumstances where the mother is in some sort of danger, yes.

    For obvious reasons, the vast majority of abortions take place within a short period of the woman finding out she’s pregnant.

  26. Keri

    Iain, you can’t tell the difference between the potential for life and a baby and between a baby and a child. If you want to be taken seriously and not be accused of dishonesty, use the correct terminology.

    I am using the correct terminology in the context of a general discussion of the topic. You and Jeremy are trying to split hairs because it suits your attempt to dehumanize the unborn as much as possible

    And I love how you’re ignoring that this legislation provides protection for doctors who deliberately lie about the health of a fetus to impose their own belief systems on parents, yet demands that a woman be forced to undergo a possibly invasive medical procedure before termination.

    I agree with you that a doctor has a duty to fully inform all patients about their findings from any investigative procedure.
    Jeremy

    I think what you’re trying to say there is that an abortion is a medical procedure therefore we should be able to force a woman to undergo a quite different medical procedure. Hey, she’s consented to one!

    That is ridiculous.

    Your response is ridiculous :roll:

    A pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual intercourse and the natural consequence pregnancy is in most cases labour and the birth of a child. Although medical monitoring is generally a good idea it is not a necessity. You want to suggest that labour and birth are an elective medical procedure when they are nothing of the sort. So your argument that a woman denied an abortion has to endure a non consensual medical procedure is utter rot.

    “you want to rely on semantic pedantry about when a child is a child. “

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but you think a collection of human cells immediately after conception is a “child”.

    from the moment that both of my children were conceived(and that fact was confirmed) my wife and I refereed to them as “a child” or “our child” and that is precisely what most people do. You want to dehumanize the unborn so it is easier for you to advocate that they can be killed. Can’t you find the courage to admit the humanity of the unborn and the arguments to justify killing them?

    “This is what you are advocating for Jeremy”

    Since that sort of abortion would only ever happen in extreme circumstances where the mother is in some sort of danger, yes.

    The trouble is that you advocate without exception abortion on demand and under such a regime there is no reason killing evidenced by the picture would be at all rare or unusual.

    For obvious reasons, the vast majority of abortions take place within a short period of the woman finding out she’s pregnant.

    Despite claiming to understand what I have said about competing rights you don’t seem to have grasped what I have been saying about the balance of those rights shifting the longer a gestation continues.

  27. Wisdom Like Silence

    I think Iains point is that an abortion is an invasive medical procedure and an ultra-sound has that cold goo stuff but not much else. That doesnt make it any more acceptable or heinous.

    You can’t dehumanise something that isn’t human Iain. Potential, probable w/e doesn’t cut it.

  28. Iain an ultrasound is a medical procedure.

    It is entirely separate from an abortion, which is a different procedure.

    Thats what jeremy was referring to.

    “Well if you oppose abortion why cant you be for truly informed consent?”

    You are kidding right. The fact that you assume someone who is pregnant is incapable of understanding the potential of the life that they are feeding (whether they like it or not).

    Thats growing inside them.

    Obviously you have no business making any comment on anything that pertains women’s health at all.

    Cos you clearly have no clue.

    –>

    “If they have been listening to the “just a bunch of cells ” argument I would say yes.”

    “It is not abuse to ensure that they accept the humanity of the child they wish to kill”

    “Well if you oppose abortion why cant you be for truly informed consent?”

    Everyone I have ever known who has had an abortion and spoken about it with me (at least 5 women if you must know,) understands the consequences of what it is they have done.

    They know full well what isn’t going to have a separate life cos of their decision.

    To assume they don’t either shows you just don’t think shit through.

    Or really don’t care.

  29. “I think Iains point is that an abortion is an invasive medical procedure and an ultra-sound has that cold goo stuff but not much else”

    And as usual, Iain’s point is bullshit, and wrong. The legislation clearly states that it would be an external OR internal ultrasound, whichever would image more accurately. In the early stages of pregnancy, internal is generally used, particularly before eight weeks. When are most abortions conducted? In the early stages of pregnancy.

    We aren’t talking about “a little bit of goo”. We’re talking about forcing women to be penetrated with a probe. If this was a bill suggesting that a man have something the size of a trans-vaginal ultrasound probe shoved somewhere he didn’t want it shoved, there’d be no chance of it getting through, and there’d be outrage.

  30. Wisdom Like Silence

    Thanks for misquoting me.

  31. Wisdom Like Silence

    I think Iain’s point is that an abortion is an invasive medical procedure and an ultra-sound has that cold goo stuff but not much else. That doesn’t make it any more acceptable or heinous.

    To be entirely honest I had not even considered an ultrasound as anting of consequence as medical procedures go. Jeremy has so badly worded his argument That I thought the medical procedure he was referring to was the ultimate birth of the child. That said I do agree that an ultrasound is hardly a big deal.

    You can’t dehumanise something that isn’t human Iain. Potential, probable w/e doesn’t cut it.

    Of course I disagree with this claim biologically a fertilized human egg is genetically human. Please prove otherwise.
    jules

    Iain an ultrasound is a medical procedure.

    It is entirely separate from an abortion, which is a different procedure.

    Thats what jeremy was referring to.

    See my response above.

    You are kidding right. The fact that you assume someone who is pregnant is incapable of understanding the potential of the life that they are feeding (whether they like it or not).
    Thats growing inside them.

    People can tell themselves lots of lies when they are trying to justify killing and the conceit that the unborn are not human until some convenient point later in the pregnancy is one of them that is most reprehensible.

    Obviously you have no business making any comment on anything that pertains women’s health at all.

    Cos you clearly have no clue.

    Abortion is not just a “women’s” issue Jules it is an issue that affects all of humanity and as a human being I am making an argument for the defenceless not to be arbitrarily killed for the crime of being inconvenient.

    Everyone I have ever known who has had an abortion and spoken about it with me (at least 5 women if you must know,) understands the consequences of what it is they have done.

    Really? I have known women who have huge regrets that they had an abortion and wish that someone had dared to suggest that they think again before they had their child killed.

    They know full well what isn’t going to have a separate life cos of their decision.

    killers can be very good at the positive self talk

    To assume they don’t either shows you just don’t think shit through.

    Look what people think of when they are busy trying to justify their decisions is one thing but it is often no comfort at all when they regret their actions in hindsight.

    Or really don’t care.

    Jules I am not opposed to abortion in all circumstances but I do not think that it is an act that should be wrapped in euphemisms and conceits that the child being killed is not human.
    Keri

    And as usual, Iain’s point is bullshit, and wrong. The legislation clearly states that it would be an external OR internal ultrasound, whichever would image more accurately. In the early stages of pregnancy, internal is generally used, particularly before eight weeks. When are most abortions conducted? In the early stages of pregnancy.

    See my response to WEL above

    We aren’t talking about “a little bit of goo”. We’re talking about forcing women to be penetrated with a probe. If this was a bill suggesting that a man have something the size of a trans-vaginal ultrasound probe shoved somewhere he didn’t want it shoved, there’d be no chance of it getting through, and there’d be outrage.

    And having an abortion does not involve a speculum and stirrups I suppose?
    I’ve seen the probe you talk about and it is thinner than your average tampon Keri. The legislation does not prevent a woman having an abortion it just removes the possibility of the denying the humanity of the condemned child .

  32. What is humanity – is it the form or appearance of human beings?
    An embryo does not have human form. It looks like a clump of cells or a gummi bear.
    Is humanity more than form? Is it the nature of man?
    An embryo does not have a personality or memories, or thoughts, or character. It is not sentient or personalized at all – it has no autonomy. It cannot communicate or receive communication.
    Is humanity just DNA? Just DNA that is human?
    A fingernail has human DNA, so does skin cells, so does sperm. That makes it human, but does not give it humanity.
    I cannot dehumanize an embryo because it is not yet a sentient being that I can rob of rights, however, I can [italics]humanize[/italics] it, if I chose to view as a future child.

  33. Wisdom Like Silence

    kozbob has pretty much knocked it on the head there I think.

    What do you want me to “prove” Iain?

  34. “I’ve seen the probe you talk about and it is thinner than your average tampon Keri”

    Bull-fucking-shit, Iain. No tampon I’ve ever come across is six inches long, which is the length of an ultrasound probe, and they’re far wider than “your average tampon”. Nor do tampons go past your cervix.

    “And having an abortion does not involve a speculum and stirrups I suppose?”

    Not in all cases, Iain, no.

    This is why you shouldn’t act like you’re the authority on all things fetus-killing. You’ve clearly got no idea what you’re talking about, and are unwilling to educate yourself.

  35. Iain, none of the women I talked to were comfortable or happy with their decision, cept one who kind of was, she was pregnant because of a rape, so I doubt she was comfortable or happy about the whole thing.

    I think she was relieved to have the “thing” gone from her body.

    The others no. All of them said that in different circumstances they would have kept their child. All of them still felt the presence of their child tho at times, all the time in some cases.

    I think, even if they looked at it as a “bunch of cells” then they all knew it had the potential to be so much more, and they all accept that a bunch of cells is still human in some way, tho its not a baby or a child. It can be a fetus tho. And it could, in other circumstances go on to save the world or start ww3 or anything in between.

    In the same way they knew they aren’t the same as they were at five or six years old.

    BTW, if it wasn’t for abortion (and nothing went wrong in between) I’d have a child turning 20 next year. Don’t think I don’t feel that loss – cos I fucken well do.

    But it wasn’t feeding off my bloodstream, and I wasn’t the one who was going to be ostracised and kicked out by their family for being pregnant to someone – especially me, back then. (Tho there is a good chance her dad would have hunted me down and actually tried to shoot me. He was a bit fucked up.)

  36. Keri


    “I’ve seen the probe you talk about and it is thinner than your average tampon Keri”

    Bull-fucking-shit, Iain. No tampon I’ve ever come across is six inches long, which is the length of an ultrasound probe, and they’re far wider than “your average tampon”. Nor do tampons go past your cervix.

    With all due respect you are talking crap here. I am happy to concede your point about the length of the ultrasound probe but your claim above in bold is so stupid and contrary the facts. No part of the device goes past the cervix. If it did the consequences would most likely be fatal for the woman.

    “And having an abortion does not involve a speculum and stirrups I suppose?”

    Not in all cases, Iain, no.

    Sure if you use an abortifactant like RU486 but most abortions are done surgically which is my point.

    This is why you shouldn’t act like you’re the authority on all things fetus-killing. You’ve clearly got no idea what you’re talking about, and are unwilling to educate yourself.

    Having made such a terrible Faux pas about how a transviginal ultrasound is done would you care to rephrase that? I may not be perfect but it is a subject that I have widely researched and on the operation of the Ultrasound it is clear that it is you who needs further eduction , not I.

  37. Jules

    Iain, none of the women I talked to were comfortable or happy with their decision, cept one who kind of was, she was pregnant because of a rape, so I doubt she was comfortable or happy about the whole thing.

    OK I get that but perhaps that is as it should be.

    I think she was relieved to have the “thing” gone from her body.

    Understandable and a legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy in my book. (as long as it is done at the earliest possible time)

    The others no. All of them said that in different circumstances they would have kept their child. All of them still felt the presence of their child tho at times, all the time in some cases.

    Regrets about abortion are far more wide spread than many feminists would have us believe.

    I think, even if they looked at it as a “bunch of cells” then they all knew it had the potential to be so much more, and they all accept that a bunch of cells is still human in some way, tho its not a baby or a child. It can be a fetus tho. And it could, in other circumstances go on to save the world or start ww3 or anything in between.

    I am a “lets call a spade a spade” kind of guy Jules and I just detest the conceit of those like Jeremy who just about have kittens trying to dehumanize the unborn. As I said before if you want to kill the unborn human beings admit that is what you are advocating. If the reasons for doing this are strong and convincing you will have a stronger and more respectable position.

    In the same way they knew they aren’t the same as they were at five or six years old.

    The humanity of an individual does not change with their age Jules

    BTW, if it wasn’t for abortion (and nothing went wrong in between) I’d have a child turning 20 next year. Don’t think I don’t feel that loss – cos I fucken well do.

    I feel your pain

    But it wasn’t feeding off my bloodstream, and I wasn’t the one who was going to be ostracised and kicked out by their family for being pregnant to someone – especially me, back then. (Tho there is a good chance her dad would have hunted me down and actually tried to shoot me. He was a bit fucked up.)

    There you go dehumanizing the unborn again by suggesting that your child was some type parasite :roll: That said I tend to think that in many cases the fear pf parental disdain or disapproval over an unwanted pregnancy is some what over claimed most of the people of my generation (I’m in my fifties) are far more accepting than our parents were.

  38. The thing that really bugs me about this whole legislation is that it is not taking control of the issues of birth control, providing information and education to young people to help slow the rates of unexpected pregnancies.
    I believe in preventative medicine, and not a band-aid solution.
    Especially when the band-aid solution is just so cruel and hideous.

    One other thing to think about- how much psychological damage is going to be done when these children grow up, and possibly learn that “Mom and Dad didn’t really want you Johnny, but we went to the Doctor and he shamed us into keeping you” Horrendous…..

  39. “I am happy to concede your point about the length of the ultrasound probe but your claim above in bold is so stupid and contrary the facts. No part of the device goes past the cervix. If it did the consequences would most likely be fatal for the woman.”

    Fatal? Remind me to tell my tech that next time he does it to check out the state of my ovaries. Or am I too dead to let him know?

    Why would a probe cause my death when an instrument used to procure an abortion wouldn’t?

    “most abortions are done surgically which is my point.”

    Your point was that all of them were, since you made the comment that a speculum was used to open the cervix, but at least we’re getting there with you admitting you’re wrong.

    ” I may not be perfect but it is a subject that I have widely researched and on the operation of the Ultrasound it is clear that it is you who needs further eduction , not I.”

    Dear, you didn’t know what size it was, and you don’t know where it goes. How “well researched” would you call that?

  40. Keri

    Fatal? Remind me to tell my tech that next time he does it to check out the state of my ovaries. Or am I too dead to let him know?

    Prove that any ultrasound probe is inserted beyond the cervix. I sat there in the Gynaecologist’s rooms while she used precisely that to show us our child at a very early stage of my wifes first pregnancy and I can assure you that it did not go past the cervix. Except for the time during labour the opening of the cervix is just not big enough to do what you think happens. check out some pictures

    Why would a probe cause my death when an instrument used to procure an abortion wouldn’t?

    If you tried to force a probe through the cervix it would most likely cause a rupture of the uterus and then you could very easily bleed out. Death within twenty minutes or less

    Your point was that all of them were, since you made the comment that a speculum was used to open the cervix, but at least we’re getting there with you admitting you’re wrong.

    You are the one who claimed that a speculum was used to open the cervix Keri not I this diagram explains the proper use of a speculum and you will notice that it does dilate on the cervix at all

    Dear, you didn’t know what size it was, and you don’t know where it goes. How “well researched” would you call that?

    Keri I know precisely what is involved and I have watched the procedure several times after it was carefully explained by a very experienced doctor but if you won’t believe me then read this link

  41. Heh heh, look at Iaiaiaiaiaiaiaian pretending to be a doctor and trying to explain to a woman how medical procedures relating to women go.

    It kinda sums up the whole abortion debate and why Iaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaian is on the wrong side of it.

  42. Pevva
    Just being a woman is no guarantee that a person has any understanding of anatomy or medical procedures .
    Keri Is just plain wrong on this one as I have demonstrated in the comment above. read the links I posted before you admit that I am right. That way you won’t look like a total idiot.

  43. Hey Iain stating the facts about the unborn is not dehumanising them. Humans continue to be “parasitical” on the humans around them till they are capable of providing for themselves (and others usually).

    Thats how it goes.

    As Maynard so eloquently pointed out:

    “Life feeds on life … this is necessary.”

    I did it to my mum and you did it to yours while you were in the womb. And they chose to share the resources they had consumed so as to survive/continue living with both of us to keep us alive as well – obviously.

    Thats a gift our mothers gave both of us – life.

    Abortion is not killing a child, any more than killing you is- its giving the human being whose resouces the”potential future child, adult and corpse” needs the choice about whether or not they give those resources. (I accept abortion is killing a fetus, and thats a different stage of being human to a child or an adult. But it is still human. Its just not an independent human capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.)

    Ultimately while something is so directly and intimately dependent on another human for its existence its that other humans choice whether they want to do that or not.

    Maybe if men could bring a child to term in their bodies and a successful transplant could be made then there could be an argument against abortion.

    But until then…

    And no I’m not dehumanising her or him, whatever they were briefly. Thats what life is, we feed on other life to stay alive, when you are in the womb you only have access to mother, you have access to her bloodstream. Tho it doesn’t actually flow through you.

    And furthermore you have no idea about the family situation of my old girlfriend, none at all.

    You can speculate on the “relative acceptance level” of my generation vs boomers vs your parents – it has no relevance to this situation and is meaningless. If you were there you would understand the situation. You weren’t so basically you have no business speculating about it.

  44. “Just being a woman is no guarantee that a person has any understanding of anatomy or medical procedures .”

    Nor is using Google.

  45. Iain, your observations were so good you described the probe as being far, far smaller than it actually is. Clearly you were paying a huge amount of attention. Forgive me if I don’t consider you having been present at a procedure and providing Google links as definitive. Particularly when I’ve undergone a procedure myself that contradicts what you’re saying, as have several other women I’ve spoken to.

    Fact is, Iain, playing Doctor Google and (incorrectly) observing a procedure doesn’t make you an expert on it. Nor have you been able to back up your claim that a probe going past the cervix would be “fatal”

    I’m waiting patiently on that one, as if it’s true, I and many, many other women have some suing to do.

    Of course the cervix isn’t normally small enough to insert a probe, but there are ways of widening it, which are used all the time, without resulting in fatalities, I might add.

  46. Keri

    Iain, your observations were so good you described the probe as being far, far smaller than it actually is.

    This is what I said about the Ultrasound probe:

    “I’ve seen the probe you talk about and it is thinner than your average tampon Keri”

    I have highlighted the relevant part I talk about its diameter without mentioning its length Big deal . What do you want a dimensioned drawing? My description may not be exhaustive but it is accurate

    Clearly you were paying a huge amount of attention. Forgive me if I don’t consider you having been present at a procedure and providing Google links as definitive. Particularly when I’ve undergone a procedure myself that contradicts what you’re saying, as have several other women I’ve spoken to.

    Well you will be able to substantiate your claim that it is inserted through the cervix then won’t you? I won’t hold my breath waiting because I know that you are wrong

    Fact is, Iain, playing Doctor Google and (incorrectly) observing a procedure doesn’t make you an expert on it. Nor have you been able to back up your claim that a probe going past the cervix would be “fatal”

    Look Keri women died from having their uterus punctured with knitting needles in back yard abortions so don’t tell me that any doctor would perform a procedure as invasive as pushing an ultra sound probe through a woman’s cervix. DO some more research

    I’m waiting patiently on that one, as if it’s true, I and many, many other women have some suing to do.

    How about you ring your doctor in the morning and ask if the probe has been put through your cervix, You clearly think that it has and you refuse to be convinced other wise. Then you can recant and apologize

    Of course the cervix isn’t normally small enough to insert a probe, but there are ways of widening it, which are used all the time, without resulting in fatalities, I might add.

    sure the cervix can be dilated but I see no reason that a doctor would do so for an ultrasound.

    Look prove your claims and I will concede the point but you haven’t done that so far

    .

  47. Have you found that proof yet Keri?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s