h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is important that the laws keep up with techno choices & science available.
We are seriously behind at the moment.

Okay, I'm back for my little monthly look on what's going on I mentioned. I can't read all the backlog, I have like a fifteen minute period here, and it's so incredibally long, but I will try to respond to it all eventually....



>
Then you really should read the backlog before stating it again.

This particular form of termination is only be used when medically necessary, for one of the following conditions:

The foetus is already dead
The foetus will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will be disabled by any kind of delivery
>

AHEM! Wrong!
A. If it were already dead, it wouldn't be an abortion. Duh!
B. I don't see what cutting it's spinal cord with scissors after it's already been delivered has to do with the mother's health, because it certainly doesn't spare her from labor

>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 255

Madent
Oh, and the foetus must also have developed to the point where it is necessary for the mother to physically give birth, i.e. foetal development past the point where other termination methods can no longer be applied.
>

Exactly! The baby's OUT of the mother's body! Why kill it?


>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 256

abbi normal [ VOTE ]
Perhaps you need to SEE some of the fetuses that are in these situations

The pictures used to explain *always have a fully formed ,normal appearing baby*

The head & spine are not always recognizable. A head & spine NOT always enclosed in skin or skull. A partial head. A spine that is twice as long as it should be and exposed to air....
Those are some easier to explain examples


Reply
>

If it's dead, or a vegetable, it's dead. It isn't an abortion if the baby's already dead.

In a partial birth abortion, killling the baby happens OUTSIDE of the mother's body, so *NO MOTHER'S HEALTH WOULD BE AFFECTED BY A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN*

>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 257

Posted by Hoovooloo
Nerd42:

Don't bother reading the backlog. It would be a waste of your time. Just read your own posts, 252 and 253. Read them as if someone else wrote them, like I did...

In post 1, and again in post 252, you posed a challenge. And in post 252 and 253, you made it clear that
(a) you are not really interested in anyone else's opinions and
(b) your mind is already made up and you can't be bothered gathering enough information to change it.

You have posed no "challenge" in this thread. You've made an immature, adolescent attempt at a fundamentalist political statement about an issue you don't even understand, and you've been exposed as not having the conviction to back it up or even pay attention to the argument.

Stop wasting our time.

H.
>

The "Challenge" is, as stated in POST 1: Show me a documented medical case in which partial birth abortion is nessicary to save the life of the mother. None have come in the backlog I've read thus far.

I will continue to try to get to them, but it could take weeks....

Okay, I'm back for my little monthly look on what's going on.

>
Then you really should read the backlog before stating it again.
>

As I mentioned, I can't read all the backlog, I have like a fifteen minute period here, and it's so incredibally long, but I will try to respond to it all eventually....

>
This particular form of termination is only be used when medically necessary, for one of the following conditions:

The foetus is already dead
The foetus will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will be disabled by any kind of delivery
>

AHEM! Wrong!
A. If it were already dead, it wouldn't be an abortion. Duh!
B. I don't see what cutting it's spinal cord with scissors after it's already been delivered has to do with the mother's health, because it certainly doesn't spare her from labor

>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 255

Madent
Oh, and the foetus must also have developed to the point where it is necessary for the mother to physically give birth, i.e. foetal development past the point where other termination methods can no longer be applied.
>

Exactly! The baby's OUT of the mother's body! Why kill it?


>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 256

abbi normal [ VOTE ]
Perhaps you need to SEE some of the fetuses that are in these situations

The pictures used to explain *always have a fully formed ,normal appearing baby*

The head & spine are not always recognizable. A head & spine NOT always enclosed in skin or skull. A partial head. A spine that is twice as long as it should be and exposed to air....
Those are some easier to explain examples


Reply
>

If it's dead, or a vegetable, it's dead. It isn't an abortion if the baby's already dead.

In a partial birth abortion, killling the baby happens OUTSIDE of the mother's body, so *NO MOTHER'S HEALTH WOULD BE AFFECTED BY A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN*

Such a ban would also not affect situations like you have just described, in which (I assume you're saying) the baby is dead.

>
Partial Birth Abortion Challenge
Post: 257

Posted by Hoovooloo
Nerd42:

Don't bother reading the backlog. It would be a waste of your time. Just read your own posts, 252 and 253. Read them as if someone else wrote them, like I did...

In post 1, and again in post 252, you posed a challenge. And in post 252 and 253, you made it clear that
(a) you are not really interested in anyone else's opinions and
(b) your mind is already made up and you can't be bothered gathering enough information to change it.

You have posed no "challenge" in this thread. You've made an immature, adolescent attempt at a fundamentalist political statement about an issue you don't even understand, and you've been exposed as not having the conviction to back it up or even pay attention to the argument.

Stop wasting our time.

H.
>

The "Challenge" is, as stated in POST 1: Show me a documented medical case in which partial birth abortion is nessicary to save the life of the mother. None have come in the backlog I've read thus far, but I'm still reading. I will continue to try to get to them, but it could take weeks....

Yikes! My posts are doubling up!

I repeat - stop wasting our time.

H.

Unsubscribe, then.

'Show me a documented medical case in which partial birth abortion is nessicary to save the life of the mother.'

Then please supply us with the correct medical terminology for 'partial birth abortion', a term invented by the right-wing to chip away at certain rights of individuals. Once we know, in *medical* terms, what a partial birth abortion is, then we can give you some *medical* cases.

Ste

"Unsubscribe, then. "

Why don't YOU unsubscribe? You yourself have made it clear that you don't have time to read the backlog here, and even if you did you're not reading it with an open mind.

Your mind is made up. YOU said so. Your "challenge" is therefore specious.

I won't unsubscribe because your particular brand of moronic self-satisfied fundamentalism should be opposed wherever it rears its empty head. And I quite enjoy poking fun at idiots.

H.

Sorry, I've been reading this through a bit and still have no idea what this 'out of the navel' weirdo sort of abortion is meant to be.

Also, many abortions are performed not out a need to save the mother's life (well, at least not physically) so why is this other method so different?

Apologies for jumping in like this. Have I missed much? Or is this just another pro-life (absurd term) vs personal choice issue?

az

Read the backlog, all of it, carefully, taking particular care to check out postings 252 and 253, which make Nerd42's dishonest intent clear.

It's all in there, there's no point me or anyone else repeating it.

H.

ok

Whoah - back up a bit there Nerd42 - if you haven't got time to read the backlog, then how do you know there wasn't the evidence you asked for posted up there?

Have you read it, or haven't you?

B

Well, considering it is his so-called 'challenge' he should probably be making the effort to see if he's being challenged or not.

Me? I got a bit lost between all the pro-anti-anti-anti-pro-pro-anti stuff. Head started to spin and had to lie down for a bit.

az

You state as one of the premises of your arguement that these so called "partial birth abortions" are never necessary to save the life of the mother. To prove this, you state that we cannot find examples where it is necessary in order to save the life of the mother.

However, this is a fallacy (specifically the 'proving the negative' fallacy). As the person making the proposition (ie. that this process should be banned totally), the onus is on you to prove that your premises are correct. If you simply say "you cannot prove otherwise", then you prove nothing. Otherwise, I could simply say "Invisible flying pink unicorns exist, you cannot prove otherwise, ergo they must exist," which is clearly nonsense.

So, my challenge to you is to go and find proof of "partial birth abortions" that were carried out when they were not necessary to save the life of the mother. I doubt you'll be able to, mainly because I can't see that medical records are likely to be available publically.

"I assume you're saying the baby is dead."

NO, you assumed wrong.
If I understand you right.

Your justifiable example: "The foetus will not survive ANY kind of delivery"
Do You mean ;It will only survive a short time?
If it did not survive delivery, no abortion is neccesary

I should have said "drawings" not pictures. The explanations of the procedure usually show a normal looking baby in the drawings. Not a true example of the heart breaking situation.

pink flying unicorns?

Hmm, no that's not a good analogy. A better one would be you saying "You're using the same logic that says that since the majority of fossils we find aren't evolutionary "missing links" then evolution didn't happen." which would make what you're saying slightly less absurd. My answer is that I don't have to defend your position. I'm having enough trouble defending mine being totally outnumbered like his. And my point is that such a case DOESN'T EXIST.

Oh, somebody asked why I was wasting my time here. You can probably tell I'm very unexperienced at debating. I'm not here to change your mind, or for you to change mine, I'm just getting some practice debating.

Nerd42

Wait a minute, I read your post again, um, I'm saying we should ban partial birth abortion. I'm asking you to show me a case where partial birth abortion is nessicary. I've looked and THERE ISN'T ONE. So how am I asking you to defend my position? I'm asking you to defend yours.

Such a MEDICAL case doesn't exist because partial-birth abortions is not a MEDICAL term. Guess who invented the term? Yep, extreme right-wing fundamentalists.

Give us the MEDICAL term and I'm sure we could find a MEDICAL case.

Understand?

Ste

Insert whatever that other technical term is that you people want to call it that seems to make you pencil necks happy. In layman's terms: cutting the baby's spinal cord while it is in the middle of being born.

pencil necks?