Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 8:19:13 PM   
xxblushesxx


Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one.


It's not murder. Only in the Crazy Religious Extremist framing of "Pro-lifers" would anyone consider it murder.

Don't you know that newborns don't even have souls until they're between 6 and 12 months old?

It's not murder if they don't have a soul. Go ahead, falsify that claim.




Yeah and they probably only keep it until they're 65 or so. So if you kill someone over 65, you're just helping them get closer to their soul, right?

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 8:20:26 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one.


It's not murder. Only in the Crazy Religious Extremist framing of "Pro-lifers" would anyone consider it murder.

Don't you know that newborns don't even have souls until they're between 6 and 12 months old?

It's not murder if they don't have a soul. Go ahead, falsify that claim.




Yeah and they probably only keep it until they're 65 or so. So if you kill someone over 65, you're just helping them get closer to their soul, right?


The bullshit he spews gets worse by the hour.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to xxblushesxx)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 8:35:19 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

You keep SAYING that "the money is interchangeable", but according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it isn't and all the repetition you care to do isn't going to change that.

He's talking about the financial concept of "fungibility".

And he is right.  And you are wrong.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 8:35:53 PM   
xxblushesxx


Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one.


It's not murder. Only in the Crazy Religious Extremist framing of "Pro-lifers" would anyone consider it murder.

Don't you know that newborns don't even have souls until they're between 6 and 12 months old?

It's not murder if they don't have a soul. Go ahead, falsify that claim.




Yeah and they probably only keep it until they're 65 or so. So if you kill someone over 65, you're just helping them get closer to their soul, right?


The bullshit he spews gets worse by the hour.


I'm just taking that thought to the next logical conclusion. (sort of) : )

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 8:42:34 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
Do you actually do your homework or expect others to do it for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services

Webster has nothing to do with the defintion of human life. It is about whether the states have to pay for abortions.

quote:

Further reading for you since states have been applying this logic in reverse for a while.

Pennsylvania On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 2601 et seq., including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine.  Although the law applies "from fertilization until birth," a convicted killer, Matthew Bullock, had argued that U.S. Supreme Court precedents allowed such a law to apply only after the point that the baby is "viable" (able to survive indefinitely outside of the womb).  The Pennsylvania justices rejected this argument, stating that "to accept that a fetus is not biologically alive until it can survive outside of the womb would be illogical, as such a concept would define fetal life in terms that depend on external conditions, namely, the state of medical technology (which, of course, tends to improve over time). . . viability outside of the womb is immaterial to the question of whether the defendant's actions have caused a cessation of the biological life of the fetus . . ."Also:  On January 24, 2003, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Corrine D. Wilcott, the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County rejected challenges asserting that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases, violates equal protection clause, and conflicts with state tort law on definition of "person." 

Georgia A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld the conviction of Richard James Smith, Sr., under Georgia's "feticide" statute.  Smith argued that the law conflicted with Roe v. Wade, but the court rejected this assertion as "without merit."  The court held:  "The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade -- that an unborn child is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus." Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).

California In People v. Davis [872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld the legislature's addition of the phrase "or a fetus" to the state murder law in 1970, but held that the term "fetus" applies "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks."  (California Penal Code 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.")  In People v. Dennis [950 P.2d 1035 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld inclusion of fetal homicide under Penal Code 190.2(3), which makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder.

Texas In the case of Terence Chadwick Lawrence v. The State of Texas (No. PD-0236-07), issued November 21, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest appellate court in criminal cases) unanimously rejected a convicted murderer's claims that the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act was unconstitutional for various reasons, including inconsistency with Roe v. Wade.   In its summary of the case, the court explained that after learning that a girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, was pregnant with his child, defendant Lawrence "shot Smith three times with a shotgun, causing her death and the death of her four-to-six week old embryo."  For this crime, Lawrence was convicted of the offense of "capital murder," defined in Texas law as causing the death of "more than one person . . during the same criminal transaction."  The court said that the abortion-related rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have "no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman's unborn child against her will."  The court noted, "Indeed, we have found no case from any state supreme court or federal court that has struck down a statute prohibiting the murder of an unborn victim, and appellant [Lawrence] cites none."

These cases all involve laws passed to make killing a fetus that the mother doesn't want aborted a crime. They do not chang ethe definition of human life. If they did then the various states murder statutes would apply.

quote:

Utah State of Utah v. Roger Martin MacGuire.  MacGuire was charged under the state criminal homicide law with killing his former wife and her unborn child.  He argued that the law, which covered "the death of another human being, including an unborn child," was unconstitutional because the term "unborn child" was not defined.  The Utah Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, holding that "the commonsense meaning of the term 'unborn child' is a human being at any stage of development in utero. . ."  MacGuire was also charged under the state's aggravated murder statute, which applies a more severe penalty for a crime in which two or more "persons" are killed; the court ruled that this law was also properly applied to an unborn victim and was consistent with the U.S. Constitution.  January 23, 2004.

Ugtah also had to add 'unborn child' to their criminal code because they otherwise could not charge anyone for killing a wanted fetus.

So you're still wrong.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 9:03:47 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
For the love of God, I hope RvW is never overturned!! I'm not "for" abortion necessarily, I'm for it being available, legal and safe for any woman who wants though. Why don't more people think of the horror many women faced before RvW? Back alley butcher shops, wire coat hangers, infections and more deaths than was necessary. That's what the Right Wing is hoping for, because it is only loose women and poor women who ever chose abortions, right?

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 8/31/2011 9:07:36 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

For the love of God, I hope RvW is never overturned!! I'm not "for" abortion necessarily, I'm for it being available, legal and safe for any woman who wants though. Why don't more people think of the horror many women faced before RvW? Back alley butcher shops, wire coat hangers, infections and more deaths than was necessary. That's what the Right Wing is hoping for, because it is only loose women and poor women who ever chose abortions, right?


My what a wide brush you have.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 1:38:50 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Funding goes, women die.

Hell, they just closed down the pron industry because one of the actors tested positive for HIV. How many of the holy rollers enjoy a secret stroke to their fav porn star. But, yes, lets close down PP.... after all, they may be diverting money to an abortion.... to terminate a pregnancy the woman may not be able to afford... and a pregnancy no one else wants to support.


So I wasn't obtuse. Thank you.



Yes, you were... then clarified.

Noticed you didnt address my response.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 3:08:52 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
Let's do this in stages because apparently, we have to.
Background of the case The state of Missouri passed a law which, in its preamble, stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception" and "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."
Next
The statute
  1. required that all Missouri state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with rights equal to those enjoyed by other persons, subject to limits imposed by the federal constitution, and federal court rulings;
  2. prohibited government-employed doctors from aborting a fetus they believed to be viable;
  3. prohibited the use of state employees or facilities to perform or assist abortions, except where the mother's life was in danger; and
  4. prohibited the use of public funds, employees, or facilities to "encourage or counsel" a woman to have an abortion, except where her life was in danger.
Next

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri struck down the above provisions, and prohibited their enforcement. This decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that above provisions violated Roe v. Wade and later Supreme Court decisions. William L. Webster, then Missouri Attorney General, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. It was argued before the Court on April 26, 1989.

Now pay attention, especially to the part in red
The Supreme Court's decision The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that:
  1. The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade.
  2. The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chose.
  3. Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional.
Item 1, the preamble being in its preamble, stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception

In the case of the South Dakota law, the language regarding life beginning at conception was not challenged because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it. In order for the language to be unconstitutional it must be used to justify an abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v Wade.  Given that precedent, Planned Parenthood attempted in 2008 to use another constitutional test, re the First Amendment, which also failed. 
I don't know if you're being deliberately asinine, or simply can't assimilate that Roe V Wade lacks the status of being the big bat you can use to smash anything and everything related to the unborn.  
Regardless, I stand by my statement, which was, A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception.
At this point Dk, I am not doing research for you any more. If you wish to flatly state that the language is unconstitutional, then prove it. Otherwise, you're simply talking, and in this case, out of your nether regions.




_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 3:12:09 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Funding goes, women die.

Hell, they just closed down the pron industry because one of the actors tested positive for HIV. How many of the holy rollers enjoy a secret stroke to their fav porn star. But, yes, lets close down PP.... after all, they may be diverting money to an abortion.... to terminate a pregnancy the woman may not be able to afford... and a pregnancy no one else wants to support.


So I wasn't obtuse. Thank you.



Yes, you were... then clarified.

Noticed you didnt address my response.


It didn't deserve a response. Next time, I'll draw pictures. Maybe that will help in being able to tie the concept of less dollars to fewer services.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 3:14:10 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
Just in case anyone needs an abortion, here are the instructions for a D&C. Remember, take the antibiotics, as the infection is the usual cause of post-procedure issues.

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual

We're going to fight this anti-abortion movement every fucking step of the way. I'm duplicating this here in the hope that others will do the same and distribute this information far and wide.

From http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com found on news.infoshop.org.

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual

I understand that you're probably really angry right now. Maybe you're reading a blog expressing that anger -- the anger that your state thinks it knows better than you what to do with your body. Maybe you're anxiously wondering where the nearest abortion clinic is, now that you will have to leave the state to get to one. If you have a serious medical condition, you might be doubling up on birth control methods, leading to a lot of worry and possibly negative side effects.

...

But what you need right now isn't the righteous anger the rest of the blogosphere will give you. You need more.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.

They were deceived -- much like you have probably been deceived. An abortion, especially for an early pregnancy, is a relatively easy procedure to perform. And while I know, women of South Dakota, that you never asked for this, now is the time to learn how it is done. There is no reason you should be beholden to doctors -- especially in a state where doctors have been refusing to perform them, forcing the state's only abortion clinic to fly doctors in from elsewhere.

No textbooks or guides existed at that time to help them, and the equipment was hard to find. This is no longer true. For under $2000, any person with the inclination to learn could create a fully functioning abortion setup allowing for both vacuum aspiration and dilation/curettage abortions. If you are careful and diligent, and have a good grasp of a woman's anatomy you will not put anyone's health or life in danger, even if you have not seen one of these procedures performed.

Today, I will discuss dilation and curettage -- what used to be the most common abortion procedure before vacuum aspiration took its place. Vacuum aspiration is an easier method, but sometimes remaining fetal/placental material necessitates doing a "cleanup" D&C anyway, so you should know how to do this procedure first.

DISCLAIMER: I am posting this as information only. Whether anyone chooses to act upon this information is their own concern. I believe in the free exchange of information and ideas. I believe this information has been kept from women for too long, and there is no reason they should not know about a procedure being performed on their own body, and no reason women should be kept in the dark about how to perform it -- especially if someone they know is having their health jeopardized by this law.

Instruments needed and their uses

You will need:

One set of uterine dilators (any equipment may be purchased from numerous websites. If you need assistance in finding this equipment, do not hesitate to email me at molly.blythe AT gmail d0t com)
Vaginal speculum
Pregnancy test
One set of uterine curettes
One pair of uterine forceps
One pair of regular forceps
Sterile bags for medical instruments and medical waste
A course of antibiotics
Sedative medication
Pressure cooker
Container of bleach solution: one part chlorine bleach to 10 parts water
Strong soap
Sterile latex gloves
Water-based lubricant
Maxi pads
Clean plastic sheeting and towels
Exam table
Wet wipes

First, let's talk instruments, before we talk implementation:

Cervical dilators come in many forms. Some hydroscopic dilators work by absorbing moisture from the vagina into the dilator, gradually increasing its diameter until it is workable. However, the "old-fashioned" way is with a set of dilators -- metal instruments of varying sizes. It would probably be best for an illegal practitioner to use these, as they are essentially infinitely reusable as long as they are sterilized between uses. Essentially, the practitioner begins with the smallest instrument and inserts it into the cervix. Then, he or she moves on to the next smallest, and so forth, until the cervix is sufficiently dilated to allow the uterine forceps to be used. This is the easiest part of the abortion, and one that requires very little knowledge other than the placement of the cervix.

Uterine forceps look like a hybrid of a scissor handle and a bird of prey's talon. Their use, once the cervix is dilated enough to allow access to the uterus, is simple: they remove the fetal material from the uterus -- as much as can be removed in this manner.

Curettes are perhaps the most foreign-looking of the implements used. Essentially, they look like small spoons with sharp edges. These are used after the uterine forceps, to make sure the rest of the fetal material and placenta is scraped from the sides of the uterus.

A course of antibiotics is CRUCIAL. The most common cause of death post-illegal abortion is due to infection. When your uterus has been opened up, it is more prone to infection. Do not fool around with this: antibiotics are absolutely necessary post-abortion. Antibiotics can be purchased from Mexican pharmaceutical supply houses for less than $2 per course.

Now that we've discussed the more uncommon instruments, let's move on to discussing the procedure itself.

Procedure

Sterilizing instruments is absolutely critical. The most professional way to sterilize instruments would be with an autoclave -- but this is something to get only if you have an extra few hundred dollars to spend in the name of efficiency. Sterilization is no joke, and nothing to be skimped on, but you can sterilize instruments very well with a household pressure cooker. Ordinary boiling water does not kill all pathogens; while boiling water was the best people could do 100 years ago, it is not the best we can do now. Check your pressure cooker's manual carefully and figure out how much water needs to be placed in it to stay at 250-260 degrees for 30 minutes. Be sure to refer carefully to the manual, or injury and damage to the cooker could result. Place the water and instruments into the pressure cooker and allow it to "cook" them for 30 minutes at the 250-260 temperature. This will steam-sterilize your instruments. If you have an autoclave, lucky you! Follow its operating instructions.

Assuming you have no autoclave, follow the instructions for opening your pressure cooker, then remove the instruments with an already-sterilized pair of ordinary forceps. set them in the sterile bags. Now your instruments are prepared. From now on, be sure to only touch the instruments on the handle side, rather than on the side coming into contact with the cervix and uterus. Wipe down your table with bleach solution, allow it to dry, and then place clean plastic sheeting over it.

Your patient should be naked from the waist down and should have her pubic area shaved. Request that the patient does so the night before. Administer a sedative to the patient long enough before the procedure begins that it will be fully effective during the D&C procedure. Prior to the procedure, conduct an ordinary pregnancy test on the woman. This may seem like a silly step, but pregnancy tests are never 100% accurate, and women have been known to come to abortion clinics and test negative. Ask your patient how long it has been since her last period. If it has been eight weeks or less, the procedure itself will take less than 15 minutes after dilation begins. The length grows, however, until at about 13-14 weeks (the limit for a D&C procedure because of the limited dilation ability of dilators) it will last up to 45 minutes. Honesty is IMPERATIVE, because dishonesty could endanger the woman's health.

Once the patient has "assumed the position" in the stirrups, wipe the vulva and anal areas with separate wet wipes, including the labia majora and minora. Once the patient is clean, lubricate the vagina with water-based lubricant and use the vaginal speculum to open the vagina and examine the cervix (information on how to use a speculum properly is widely available online and in print and does not need to be reprinted here, but please be sure you understand how to use the speculum prior to conducting this procedure).

The cervix is a small, round, smooth-looking muscle at the top of the vaginal canal. Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the female reproductive system prior to performing any procedure such as this. The cervix is the entrance to the uterus. A non-pregnant uterus is only as big as a small pear, but it grows bigger even in the earliest months of pregnancy -- at 8 weeks, it is the size of a peach, and at 14 weeks, the size of a grapefruit. I didn't make up all these fruit-sizing terms, other people did, and I apologize for making anyone uncomfortable whilst eating fruit salad from now on.

It is important to know the approximate size of the uterus because that's where you're headed. Get out your smallest dilator and insert it slowly and gently into the cervix. This hurts -- it's part of why your patient is sedated. Novocaine is sometimes injected to numb the cervix, but when you are just starting, it is probably preferable to stay away from needles entirely. Insert each dilator in turn. Even the largest dilator, as you will notice, doesn't give you very much room -- less than an inch of opening. There's no way you can see into the uterus. From here on out -- this is the scary part -- you will have to operate on feel alone. Don't feel too afraid. Each element in the uterus feels different from the others, and as long as you are careful and understand exactly what the procedure involves at each step, it will not be too difficult.

The first step is to break the membrane holding the fetus inside. You can feel around with the forceps for it. To get an idea of what each part looks like -- and to see the texture so that you understand better how it will feel -- I recommend looking at books with photographs of first trimester fetuses (personal recommendation for its astonishing photographs: A Child is Born), The membrane should be easily broken with the forceps. Depending on how far along the pregnancy is, varying quantities of clear or pinkish fluid may come from the vagina. As you grasp the sac with your forceps, twist it away so that it detaches. You will now need to remove small pieces of fetal material and membrane from the uterus with the forceps. Some of these pieces will be distinctly identifiable as fetal material. Save the material until the end of the procedure on a piece of plastic, so that you can be sure the entire fetus has been removed. If doing this sounds too ethically challenging, remember that fetuses do not have the capacity to feel actual pain until the third trimester. You are not "hurting" it, and it has no awareness, nor the capacity for awareness, that you are extracting it.

This portion of the abortion procedure should not be particularly painful for the patient.

While you are removing fetal material, you will also be removing pieces of placenta. However, because the placenta is attached to the uterine wall -- and because it is the blood source for the baby -- bleeding may begin at this time. It is imperative that if bleeding begins at this point in the procedure, you do NOT stop. Stopping the procedure and attempting to stanch the bleeding will not work. The bleeding will stop on its own once the placenta is totally removed from the uterus. It may be scary, but keep going.

Once you have removed most of the material that is removable, you must move on to curettage. By now you will have felt the walls of the uterus with the forceps, and you must move on to using the spoon-shaped curettes. Find the spot on the uterine wall where placenta still clings -- the curette will make a sound much like metal on metal on a clean uterine wall, but will not make the same scraping sound on a place that still needs material removed. Scrape from the uterine walls, scraping material toward the cervix. Use the same general form of stroke you would use to scoop ice cream, and don't be afraid to scrape fairly hard. Scraping softly could leave tissue behind, and if there's anything you don't want, it's that. The other cue that will inform you the uterus is clean is that the patient will generally report feeling a cramp when the clean uterus is scraped, whereas a scrape of placenta will not feel as painful. Listen to your patient and listen to your curettes.

Once the material is removed from the uterine wall, any excess bleeding will generally slow or stop and it's uterine forceps time again. Take the remaining material out with the forceps. Most pieces of fetal material will come out with a simple tug on the forceps (again, don't be too afraid to use force and put a bit of muscle into it). However, at 13-14 weeks the fetal head may be slightly big to bring out. Pinch it with the forceps and take it out in pieces, as well. Make absolutely sure all bone fragments are removed from the uterus, as well as all other material. If necessary, use the curette again to remove remaining material and repeat the procedure with forceps.

By this point, bleeding should be no more than in a normal period, and likely quite a bit less. If the patient is still bleeding heavily at this point, get her to a hospital -- it means you likely did not curette completely, and the hospital will generally complete the procedure as her life is assuredly in danger.

When you feel the curettage and removal is complete, make sure you examine the fetal material you have already extracted. If you're missing anything obvious -- for instance, a head -- make sure to find and remove it.

Allow your patient to rest comfortably on the table if she wishes, or to get dressed. She will likely have some residual bleeding, so make sure you have maxi pads on hand (I would not risk infection from tampons so soon after the procedure). Give her the course of antibiotics and stress to her how imperative it is that she use them as directed. Make sure that she understands any bleeding or problems means she needs to call 911 immediately. When she is ready, allow her to leave -- if sedated, do not allow her to drive home herself. Follow up in a few days and make sure she is not experiencing much bleeding or pain.

-------

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 3:55:08 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

For the love of God, I hope RvW is never overturned!! I'm not "for" abortion necessarily, I'm for it being available, legal and safe for any woman who wants though. Why don't more people think of the horror many women faced before RvW? Back alley butcher shops, wire coat hangers, infections and more deaths than was necessary. That's what the Right Wing is hoping for, because it is only loose women and poor women who ever chose abortions, right?


The uncomfortable position this battle puts many people, including myself in, isn't with the right itself. It is with the insistence, as fargle noted, that the right be upheld in any circumstance, including late term abortions. I despise attempts by anyone to attack the rights of others or to turn their heads when government is seizing more power, because rights always suffer when government is given more power over the people.

The issue for me is not to tell you what you can do with your body. That argument is simplistic, and ignores the fact that somewhere along this timeline, the life within is a life whether the mother is present or not. At that point, terminating it is undeniably killing it. What abortion supporters want is that life to have no value until it is born, or I think legally, it's the moment the head crowns. These same people then want to suddenly shower that life with every possible right and treat it as if it is incredibly special.

That is not a stance I can accept. Read any statistics you want on how people feel about this topic, and if they are  not completely invented, what you will see is that a plurality support the right. That support dwindles as time passes. SCOTUS protections in terms of Roe v Wade, if I read it right, only extend to viability so states can already restrict late term abortions. Having watched the process via sonograms week to week, I can understand completely why a lot of folks would like that point pushed back earlier and earlier as it is evident to even the brain dead, that the "group of cells" rather quickly morphs into a recognizably human form.

I can also understand why those same people are uncomfortable supplying federal dollars to an organization that performs abortions. The argument that federal dollars are not used for them does not supplant the fact that if federal dollars were removed, dollars currently used for other services would be reallocated to provide these services. The scope and breadth of Planned Parenthood's presence would therefore be diminished if those dollars were removed. This is the ammunition pro-life folk carry into the battle, a battle that would not exist if abortions were relegated to private enterprise, and not to an institution that has federal money as part of its budget.

For both sides, the battle is too often over an all or nothing stance. This one area of contention has done more to establish left and right fringes, and give them power within the parties, than about anything else that comes to mind. Abortion is so divisive that many use their votes to support or attack it. I wrote in another thread that the battle over abortion "has solidified camps, strategies and tactics more than any other single issue that comes to mind. It is there that the ability to compromise, or even the desire to, died.  Not only did it drive people apart, it pushed them into camps where the idealism went beyond the central issue. If you supported the right to abortion, and voted that way, you by default began to vote for more and more left-leaning ideologies. If you didn't, you by default began to vote for more conservative stances. You had to. The parties set their core platforms along those lines, and in doing so allowed the fringe elements to gain significant control and strength."

I am one of the people in the middle who understands that both sides have validity to their arguments, but who also understands that neither side will ever be able to reach a compromise that satisfies both. And in the end, it's how we sometimes end up politicians who can pander to one side or the other enough to keep them lining up at the voting booths, while they fuck up the economy, take your rights away in other areas, or simply are incompetent to lead or govern.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 3:59:42 AM   
DeviantlyD


Posts: 4375
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Hawai`i
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Just in case anyone needs an abortion, here are the instructions for a D&C. Remember, take the antibiotics, as the infection is the usual cause of post-procedure issues. [snip]


This is scary information at best. Practising medicine without a license, to be sure and not offering the best of information on top of it all. I like how they state the importantance of antibiotics, but they don't offer up the names of any in particular. There are more than just one type. And the pressure cooker to "sterilize" the instruments? OMG!! Even if something like that were to work, 30 minutes would be the minimum amount of time.

Wow. This is just bad.

_____________________________

ExiledTyrant's groupie. Catering to his ego since May 26, 2007. :D

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 5:11:09 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

Let's do this in stages because apparently, we have to.
Background of the case The state of Missouri passed a law which, in its preamble, stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception" and "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."
Next
The statute
  1. required that all Missouri state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with rights equal to those enjoyed by other persons, subject to limits imposed by the federal constitution, and federal court rulings;
  2. prohibited government-employed doctors from aborting a fetus they believed to be viable;
  3. prohibited the use of state employees or facilities to perform or assist abortions, except where the mother's life was in danger; and
  4. prohibited the use of public funds, employees, or facilities to "encourage or counsel" a woman to have an abortion, except where her life was in danger.
Next

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri struck down the above provisions, and prohibited their enforcement. This decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that above provisions violated Roe v. Wade and later Supreme Court decisions. William L. Webster, then Missouri Attorney General, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. It was argued before the Court on April 26, 1989.

Now pay attention, especially to the part in red
The Supreme Court's decision The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that:
  1. The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade.
  2. The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chose.
  3. Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional.
Item 1, the preamble being in its preamble, stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception

In the case of the South Dakota law, the language regarding life beginning at conception was not challenged because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it. In order for the language to be unconstitutional it must be used to justify an abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v Wade.  Given that precedent, Planned Parenthood attempted in 2008 to use another constitutional test, re the First Amendment, which also failed. 
I don't know if you're being deliberately asinine, or simply can't assimilate that Roe V Wade lacks the status of being the big bat you can use to smash anything and everything related to the unborn.  
Regardless, I stand by my statement, which was, A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception.
At this point Dk, I am not doing research for you any more. If you wish to flatly state that the language is unconstitutional, then prove it. Otherwise, you're simply talking, and in this case, out of your nether regions.




You said it yourself. The Webster ruling had nothing to do with Missori's definition of human life because it was not changed. The preamble to a law is fluff. The Court even said they did not consider the preamble because it didn't matter.

BTW the Missouri law in question, as you said, said each fetus was to be treated like a legal human except where that conflicted with the Constitution and federal court rulings. That is what was legal and that didn't redefine human life but simply said certain collections of nonviable cells would be treated as if it was a human under certain conditions.

You've now threee times shown your original claim was wrong and you keep acting like you are presenting conclusive arguments in the other direction.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 5:44:14 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You said it yourself. The Webster ruling had nothing to do with Missori's definition of human life because it was not changed. The preamble to a law is fluff. The Court even said they did not consider the preamble because it didn't matter.

BTW the Missouri law in question, as you said, said each fetus was to be treated like a legal human except where that conflicted with the Constitution and federal court rulings. That is what was legal and that didn't redefine human life but simply said certain collections of nonviable cells would be treated as if it was a human under certain conditions.

You've now threee times shown your original claim was wrong and you keep acting like you are presenting conclusive arguments in the other direction.


You are incorrect. The preamble was under consideration as well. In choosing not to rule on its constitutionality, the court upheld the definition as it was not used to justify an abortion law contradictory to rvw. Insisting the definition being "fluff" is idiotic given that very definition is what led to the constitutional challenge in South Dakota where the definition led to restrictions on how and what information abortion providers were required to impart.

What you've demonstrated three times is the inability to read. And that is where this discussion will end, because apparently again, we must have pictures and I don't have time to draw them this morning.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 5:46:45 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

Wow. This is just bad.


Probably the best description of fargle's posts in general that I've seen to date ... 

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DeviantlyD)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 6:21:50 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Half of the pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.... and many women never know. So much for care and assistance.


Actually, I heard it was a fourth... but whatever the number, the womb was clearly "designed" for a purpose.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 6:25:07 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Give it a rest. Like with the rest, you could care less what happens to the "babies". But you will be the first to bitch when the mother signs up for welfare, medicaid, or when the baby is abused or neglected.


You have never met me and you don't know me well enough to make such a judgement.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 7:10:30 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You said it yourself. The Webster ruling had nothing to do with Missori's definition of human life because it was not changed. The preamble to a law is fluff. The Court even said they did not consider the preamble because it didn't matter.

BTW the Missouri law in question, as you said, said each fetus was to be treated like a legal human except where that conflicted with the Constitution and federal court rulings. That is what was legal and that didn't redefine human life but simply said certain collections of nonviable cells would be treated as if it was a human under certain conditions.

You've now threee times shown your original claim was wrong and you keep acting like you are presenting conclusive arguments in the other direction.


You are incorrect. The preamble was under consideration as well. In choosing not to rule on its constitutionality, the court upheld the definition as it was not used to justify an abortion law contradictory to rvw. Insisting the definition being "fluff" is idiotic given that very definition is what led to the constitutional challenge in South Dakota where the definition led to restrictions on how and what information abortion providers were required to impart.

What you've demonstrated three times is the inability to read. And that is where this discussion will end, because apparently again, we must have pictures and I don't have time to draw them this morning.


You really need to learn some law and legal standards before you start spouting stuff like this.

It's very very simple. A human life cannot be ended legally except in very limited circumstances (self defence and defence of others). The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all humans. Therefore it is completely unconstitutional to allow any defineable class of human beings to be lawfully killed. Therefore any state that attempts to redefine human life to include previability fetus runs into a Roe and equal protection conflict and SCOTUS would get involved.

Preambles to laws have no meaning at all. The stuff that matters is the stuff that gets inserted into the state code, read a law and it always includes language about where the new stuff gets inserted into the state code or what sections get replaced. For instance Missori's state code is

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/statutes.htm#T01

And the only thing that would define who a person is a statement that common non technical words will have their usual meaning. So since SCOTUS has ruled that previability fetus are not legally humans then that is what governs.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 9/1/2011 7:11:46 AM >

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again - 9/1/2011 7:38:11 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You said it yourself. The Webster ruling had nothing to do with Missori's definition of human life because it was not changed. The preamble to a law is fluff. The Court even said they did not consider the preamble because it didn't matter.

BTW the Missouri law in question, as you said, said each fetus was to be treated like a legal human except where that conflicted with the Constitution and federal court rulings. That is what was legal and that didn't redefine human life but simply said certain collections of nonviable cells would be treated as if it was a human under certain conditions.

You've now threee times shown your original claim was wrong and you keep acting like you are presenting conclusive arguments in the other direction.


You are incorrect. The preamble was under consideration as well. In choosing not to rule on its constitutionality, the court upheld the definition as it was not used to justify an abortion law contradictory to rvw. Insisting the definition being "fluff" is idiotic given that very definition is what led to the constitutional challenge in South Dakota where the definition led to restrictions on how and what information abortion providers were required to impart.

What you've demonstrated three times is the inability to read. And that is where this discussion will end, because apparently again, we must have pictures and I don't have time to draw them this morning.


You really need to learn some law and legal standards before you start spouting stuff like this.

It's very very simple. A human life cannot be ended legally except in very limited circumstances (self defence and defence of others). The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all humans. Therefore it is completely unconstitutional to allow any defineable class of human beings to be lawfully killed. Therefore any state that attempts to redefine human life to include previability fetus runs into a Roe and equal protection conflict and SCOTUS would get involved.

Preambles to laws have no meaning at all. The stuff that matters is the stuff that gets inserted into the state code, read a law and it always includes language about where the new stuff gets inserted into the state code or what sections get replaced. For instance Missori's state code is

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/statutes.htm#T01

And the only thing that would define who a person is a statement that common non technical words will have their usual meaning. So since SCOTUS has ruled that previability fetus are not legally humans then that is what governs.



So what I have are your words, and those issued by the Supreme Court in this instance, which was related to the language not being used to invalidate rvw. It is very, very simple. They looked at it, saw the wording was not used to invalidate RvW, and said there was no constitutional issue. That wording led to another challenge in South Dakota on different grounds.

So all in all, I have the Supreme Court reviewing the wording and saying, it's ok cause it's not invalidating our previous stance. And I have DomKen saying, the language has never been under review, never been upheld, and doesn't matter when the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to note it in their ruling.

Now every legal discussion on this topic anywhere, including liberal sources will tell you that the Supreme Court upheld the language.

So who am I to believe? The SC itself, every other source available, or dk, who refuses to recognize the fact that the SC chose to note no clash on constitution grounds?

Maybe you should just quit arguing when you're wrong.

Or maybe, hell, you should take them to court yourself. I mean it's not hard to find where the language affects abortion providers, is it?



_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125