IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

Somehow, I don't think Dixie will be returning to this thread.....

Two different posts from the AMA and one from one of the doctors who testified to Congress all show him to be wrong.
 
Superfreak said:
"And Super? When I find and post the testimony from doctors before congress, what will you have to say then? "

As I already said Dixie... if you provide the exact testimony of the doctors that says that there are NEVER any circumstances for this procedure, that I would appologize. But I am still waiting.... while you keep stalling...
Click to expand...



Dr. C. Everett Koop:
"Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both."
(This statement was endorsed by over 300 concurring physicians.)

Dr. James McMahon: (inventor of partial-birth abortion)
"I have never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman."

Dr. Martin Haskell: (abortion doctor specializing in the partial birth procedure)
“...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” (note: 0% for health/life of the mother)

Dr. Pamela Smith: (Director of Medical Education Mt. Sinai Hospital)
"There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Dr. Joseph DeCook (Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn)
"The partial-birth abortion procedure can in fact be quite dangerous to the mother. Because the abortionist forcefully dilates the cervix, he can tear the stiff muscle, unready to open for the birth of a baby. He must reach in with forceps and drag the baby down through the birth canal. The baby is delivered in the breach position, a position never desired in normal childbirth. It's backwards. The legs and arms stick out wrong. The uterus can be ruptured when the baby is rotated in the womb. There is danger of infection, of later miscarriages, and even sterility."

The American Medical Association's board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which "intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion."

================================


I'll be holding my breath for your apology, don't keep me waiting!
 
Superfreak said:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80553.000/hju80553_0.HTM

The above is the testimony. Dixie... take a look at STATEMENT OF KATHI AULTMAN, M.D....

This is just a part of it....

"The ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health because it isn't medically necessary and there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened."


So as I have said... while abhorrent and something that should be avoided... even one of the doctors testifying said that there is an exception if her life is truly threatened.
Click to expand...


You are completely misconstruing what Dr. Aultman said. Read it carefully, there are OTHER procedures that could and would be used, should the life of the mother be in jeapordy. She clearly says, the ban would NOT endanger a woman's health, can you not READ?
 
"You are completely misconstruing what Dr. Aultman said. Read it carefully, there are OTHER procedures that could and would be used, should the life of the mother be in jeapordy. She clearly says, the ban would NOT endanger a woman's health, can you not READ?"

Yes, I clearly read that portion. I was also able to continue on to the part where she said there would be an exception in the bill to provide for that rare circumstance where the womans life was truly in danger. She said the ban would not endanger the womans health.... could that be because there was an exception to protect her if her life was truly in danger?
 
Yes, I clearly read that portion. I was also able to continue on to the part where she said there would be an exception in the bill to provide for that rare circumstance where the womans life was truly in danger. She said the ban would not endanger the womans health.... could that be because there was an exception to protect her if her life was truly in danger?

No, that isn't what she said, read it again. She stated that a ban on partial birth would not jeopardize a woman's health, because it isn't medically necessary and there are other standard alternative methods available in such cases. You are really not comprehending what she said, if you think she made a case for allowing a health exception in partial birth, because she said just the opposite.

I am still waiting for that apology!
 
Dr. Aultman makes the same point I made earlier, and you simply ignored. If the mother's health or life were at risk, a partial-birth procedure would put her at even MORE risk than any number of other alternatives. This is why Dr. C. Everett Koop, as well as the numerous doctors I have cited, all concur on this. This is why Congress found the evidence to be overwhelming and clear, and why the 'health exemption' was not included in the bill.

Let me tell you what is going on, since you seem to be totally clueless... A stipulation such as this 'health exception' would effectively render the ban useless. It gives doctors the loophole to continue performing partial birth abortions, because all they have to do is say it was a matter of the woman's health, which can be legally defined as "mental health" according to the law. Do you not comprehend this? Is it too hard for your idiot ass to grasp? The 'health exception' essentially makes the BAN ineffective, and would make the legislation paramount to "frowning upon" partial birth! That is not the purpose or intent of BANNING the procedure, is it????
 
So Dixie where is your cite saying that every doctor who testified to congress said the procedure is NEVER medically necessary?

"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
Superfreak said:
Somehow, I don't think Dixie will be returning to this thread.....

Two different posts from the AMA and one from one of the doctors who testified to Congress all show him to be wrong.
Click to expand...

One thing I like about Dixie is that he always comes back for more punishment. He seems to get off on being proven wrong again and again.

What a fool he looks to anyone who happens to read this thread.. The only other one that comes close is where he claims 20 year old, degraded munitions that had been burried and forgotten in the dessart and were not capable of causing any damage were WMD!
 
Jarhead, I don't think anyone has dedicated a "cite" for that. Were you expecting a link to comeplace co you could immediately ctart attacking the cource?

Corry!
 
What a fool he looks to anyone who happens to read this thread..

Yeah, because I've clearly not shown any evidence to support my view, and I couldn't argue against the overwhelming evidence presented by you and Super to back your position. Oh...pay no attention to the little misunderstanding about what Dr. Aultman actually said, and what Super claims she said, you didn't really see that... Oh, and... pay no attention to the list of quotes I presented about seven posts back, that isn't really there! If you do that and stand on your ear and read the thread backwards, you are absolutely right... I must be a fool to anyone who reads this thread!

Fucktard!
 
Dixie said:
What a fool he looks to anyone who happens to read this thread..

Yeah, because I've clearly not shown any evidence to support my view, and I couldn't argue against the overwhelming evidence presented by you and Super to back your position. Oh...pay no attention to the little misunderstanding about what Dr. Aultman actually said, and what Super claims she said, you didn't really see that... Oh, and... pay no attention to the list of quotes I presented about seven posts back, that isn't really there! If you do that and stand on your ear and read the thread backwards, you are absolutely right... I must be a fool to anyone who reads this thread!

Fucktard!
Click to expand...


You have shown 0 evidence to support your claim that NO doctors support an exemption for the life of the woman. And you have been proven wrong about your claims about the AMA.


When someone calls you a "fucktard" you know you must be right...



"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you are right, it is an idiotic statement to claim you are against something, yet for it being legal. In fact, it's beyond idiotic.

I am against religion, yet am for it being legal...

Go figure....
 
""The ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health because it isn't medically necessary and there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened."

Dixie... try reading the above testimony from Aultman again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence. It is the one you seem to completely ignore. I stipulate that she has said that it should never be needed. But she left open the ability of the attending physician to make the call, just in case there ever is a situation that the mothers life is truly in danger. It doesn't mean it will happen and based on the AMA and the doctors testimony it probably never will. But they, unlike you, are leaving the door open just in case.

If you cannot see this, then you are without doubt a fucking idiot. Because BOTH the AMA and Aultman bring up the exception.
 
Including the exception will not kill the meaning of the bill, Dixie. When proving that the life of the mother was at stake (crap, how did I get meat in there?) it will take more than the doctor just saying, "Well, I thought so..." It will also need to be shown that it would have been more dangerous to her to just induce. I think it will have the same result in the end with or without the exception.
 
Last edited:
Dixie, in the tales of your religion, even your god exercises moral relativism.

In one breath he is commanding people not to kill, the next he is encouraging and killing like a Tarentino film....
 
Jarod said:
If the AMA is so sure there is a safer alternative to the D&X procedure... Why must Physician "retain the discretion to make that judgment"???
Click to expand...
Boilerplate standard position on all medical issues, which is not indicative of the support of any position other than itself.
 
Last edited:
The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient
 
""The ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health because it isn't medically necessary and there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened."

Dixie... try reading the above testimony from Aultman again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence. It is the one you seem to completely ignore. I stipulate that she has said that it should never be needed. But she left open the ability of the attending physician to make the call, just in case there ever is a situation that the mothers life is truly in danger. It doesn't mean it will happen and based on the AMA and the doctors testimony it probably never will. But they, unlike you, are leaving the door open just in case.

If you cannot see this, then you are without doubt a fucking idiot. Because BOTH the AMA and Aultman bring up the exception.
Click to expand...

Super, I have read the statement several times, she clearly states that a ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health. She goes on to give her reason for believing this... because it isn't medically necessary... again... she states that very clearly... WHY is it not medically necessary? Well, because there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. Once again, very clearly stated here!

But she left open the ability of the attending physician to make the call

No, she didn't. She stated that in the event of risk to a womans health, there are other alternatives, and those alternatives have provisions for health or life of the mother. She is essentially backing her statement with logic, something that seems to be lost on you.

I know it's embarassing to post 'evidence' only to find it refutes your point, especially when it is Dixie that points that out to you! I get that! But please, let's try to be mature about this Super. You read the statement again, and tell me how you come to your conclusions, because I am reading the exact words, I am using the exact context, and I have shown you twice now, that she didn't say what you claim she said. It's pretty black and white to me.

Including the exception will not kill the meaning of the bill, Dixie.
Click to expand...

Including the exception is pointless because it is not needed, Damo. I'm not concerned with the "meaning" of the bill as much as I am concerned with BANNING partial birth abortion procedures. The health exception gives a legal loophole for doctors who want to ignore the bill and do them anyway. Mental health has already been established by law to be included in "health" so, all a doc would have to say is, she required PBA for her "mental health" and the practice would simply continue.

From the very start, the 'health exception' was part of the abortion lobby plan to kill the bill. They knew that non-thinkers like Super would glom onto the emotional idea that we were somehow excluding this exception unfairly, as if this were a bill about ALL abortions across the board, when it wasn't. It's about a particular procedure, a cruel, hideous, and inhumane procedure that should NEVER be performed, and amounts to infanticide. There is never any reason to have to perform this particular procedure for the sake of the woman's health, in fact, just the contrary, it is far riskier to the woman's health than any of the numerous alternatives.
 
Dixie said:
Super, I have read the statement several times, she clearly states that a ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health. She goes on to give her reason for believing this... because it isn't medically necessary... again... she states that very clearly... WHY is it not medically necessary? Well, because there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. Once again, very clearly stated here!

But she left open the ability of the attending physician to make the call

No, she didn't. She stated that in the event of risk to a womans health, there are other alternatives, and those alternatives have provisions for health or life of the mother. She is essentially backing her statement with logic, something that seems to be lost on you.

I know it's embarassing to post 'evidence' only to find it refutes your point, especially when it is Dixie that points that out to you! I get that! But please, let's try to be mature about this Super. You read the statement again, and tell me how you come to your conclusions, because I am reading the exact words, I am using the exact context, and I have shown you twice now, that she didn't say what you claim she said. It's pretty black and white to me.



Including the exception is pointless because it is not needed, Damo. I'm not concerned with the "meaning" of the bill as much as I am concerned with BANNING partial birth abortion procedures. The health exception gives a legal loophole for doctors who want to ignore the bill and do them anyway. Mental health has already been established by law to be included in "health" so, all a doc would have to say is, she required PBA for her "mental health" and the practice would simply continue.

From the very start, the 'health exception' was part of the abortion lobby plan to kill the bill. They knew that non-thinkers like Super would glom onto the emotional idea that we were somehow excluding this exception unfairly, as if this were a bill about ALL abortions across the board, when it wasn't. It's about a particular procedure, a cruel, hideous, and inhumane procedure that should NEVER be performed, and amounts to infanticide. There is never any reason to have to perform this particular procedure for the sake of the woman's health, in fact, just the contrary, it is far riskier to the woman's health than any of the numerous alternatives.
Click to expand...
Why would it matter if it is "pointless". If it gets the law passed then include it. It would not subtract from the meaning of the bill in any way to have it in there. And the idea that any doctor could just say, "Well I said so" when ascertaining it would endanger her life otherwise is simply ridiculous.

So, include it, get the law passed, do something for once instead of acting constantly outraged over such an inclusion and not getting anything done at all. This is one of my most major frustrations with the R Party. The idea that doing nothing at all is better than passing this bill with a "pointless" caveat...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top