Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

No controversy is including bloody twitter hashtags in posts on boards!:mad:

Do you have a linky for that assertion?

#pushingmyluck

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Do you have a linky for that assertion?

#pushingmyluck

Yes.

Sarky

Jaysus, even the Bible's logic isn't that circular.

eyescreamcone

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah come on. Don't stress yourself out, kneel by your bed tonight and ask himself upstairs to sort out things like that (glance's about for Jovial bolts)

I live in a bungalow
There's no one upstairs

Bannasidhe

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I live in a bungalow
There's no one upstairs

Have you checked the attic recently?

eyescreamcone

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you checked the attic recently?

No - but we've no stairs to the attic.
You have to check all the smallprint.

THERE IS NO ONE UPSTAIRS!!!

Brown Bomber

kylith wrote: »

I just had a thought about this foetal pain argument. The link which BB supplied earlier stated

meaning that the woman was anaesthetised.

This site states



Now, I know it's referencing C-sections but if an anesthetic is used to put the woman to sleep for a D&C there is no reason to think that the foetus would not also be anesthetised, meaning that foetal pain, if it's capable of feeling it, would range from 'dull' to 'totally numbed and asleep'.

So is there actually any reason to say that the foetus would feel any pain at all during a D&C?


* Depression in this context meaning sluggishness or unresponsiveness.

We've already been over this. The foetus receives the anasthethic through the mother. I've quoted an expert who in his medical opinion there is not a level of anasthetic that can be supplied that both a) leaves the baby anaesatised and b) doesn't put the mother at grave risk.

Now, Mark Hamill has disputed this on the basis of a) "googling" and b) the comments of another anonymous boards user.

aloyisious

eyescreamcone wrote: »

No - but we've no stairs to the attic.
You have to check all the smallprint.

THERE IS NO ONE UPSTAIRS!!!

Rap's loudly on roof and shout's "It is I"

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We've already been over this. The foetus receives the anasthethic through the mother. I've quoted an expert who in his medical opinion there is not a level of anasthetic that can be supplied that both a) leaves the baby anaesatised and b) doesn't put the mother at grave risk.

Wait, your previous link said you can't supply enough anaesthetic via the mother to numb the foetus, yet this link here says that is exactly what happens. From your own link:

Norman Swan: How can you anaesthetise a foetus?

Dario Fauza: By anaesthetising the mother you anaesthetise the foetus because the drug goes through the placenta onto the foetus and it gets anaesthetised.

Which one is it Brown Bomber? It can't be both.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now, Mark Hamill has disputed this on the basis of a) "googling" and b) the comments of another anonymous boards user.

No, I disputed based on why would they go via the mother when they could just give it directly to the foetus. a) and b) were used to dispute the prevalence of partial birth abortions

bumper234

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wait, your previous link said you can't supply enough anaesthetic via the mother to numb the foetus, yet this link here says that is exactly what happens. From your own link:


Which one is it Brown Bomber? It can't be both.


No, I disputed based on why would they go via the mother when they could just give it directly to the foetus. a) and b) were used to dispute the prevalence of partial birth abortions

WOWZERS.....

I wonder what tactic he will use to avoid answering that? A little deflection coming your way methinks sir:rolleyes:

Turtwig

bumper234 wrote: »

WOWZERS.....

I wonder what tactic he will use to avoid answering that? A little deflection coming your way methinks sir:rolleyes:

Please stop with these types of posts. They're not in any way constructive. Only possibly serve to inflame the poster you're directing them at.

bumper234

Jernal wrote: »

Please stop with these types of posts. They're not in any way constructive. Only possibly serve to inflame the poster you're directing them at.

Not meant to "inflame" they are meant to get him to ANSWER questions that are directed at him. If he refuses to do this then it is fair to let others know (in advance) what to expect from him.

You yourself know that he cherry picks which questions to answer (the easy ones with links to random blogs) and he blatantly avoids any hard questions that he is afraid to answer. I am sorry if you feel this is detrimental to the thread but again i say if he is going to deflect and avoid giving answers to the hard questions then he should be called up for it.

Lingua Franca

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...

Are you refreshed enough now to respond to oldrnwisr's posts?

Galvasean

eireannBEAR wrote: »

well then show some more respect for a mod that has supported your cause,respect the mods suggestions.

last post on this,as im sick of arguing.

so dont bombard me with questions, i answered and now im finished.

Finished what?

:pac:

Turtwig

Cut it out both of you!

Turtwig

bumper234 wrote: »

Not meant to "inflame" they are meant to get him to ANSWER questions that are directed at him. If he refuses to do this then it is fair to let others know (in advance) what to expect from him.

I never said the post was meant to inflame. I was saying there is a possibility the post could inflame a user and so asked you to refrain from them in future. If you want him to answer your questions then be a bit more cordial about it. This is a very emotive topic so flat out shouting at a person to answer a question will only serve to do the opposite. Loads of people will dodge difficult questions put to them without even realising. Unless you suspect he's a troll then keep working with the debate constructively. If you think he's troll, or that his antics, are unfair or dishonest then report him.

Even if he was the greatest troll ever it still wouldn't be correct to stoop to the level you did.

bumper234

Jernal wrote: »

I never said the post was meant to inflame. I was saying there is a possibility the post could inflame a user and so asked you to refrain from them in future. If you want him to answer your questions then be a bit more cordial about it. This is a very emotive topic so flat out shouting at a person to answer a question will only serve to do the opposite. Loads of people will dodge difficult questions put to them without even realising. Unless you suspect he's a troll then keep working with the debate constructively. If you think he's troll, or that his antics, are unfair or dishonest then report him.

Even if he was the greatest troll ever it still wouldn't be correct to stoop to the level you did.

I agree and again i apologize....Now wheres that report button

swampgas

Just to comment on the idea that because something is unpleasant to consider or watch that it is somehow barbaric (i.e. wrong). Brown Bomber, you seem fixated on the details of how certain abortions might be carried out, but in fact the details are really quite irrelevant, even if we get squeamish thinking about them.

Many medical procedures are gruesome to the lay person.

Open heart surgery is a good thing yet many people would prefer not to see it done. I have had major eye surgery which could be considered completely gruesome and horrific, but it saved my eyesight, and nobody would claim that such eye surgery should be banned because it is somehow "barbaric". I will spare you the gruesome details because they are irrelevant.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

Just to comment on the idea that because something is unpleasant to consider or watch that it is somehow barbaric (i.e. wrong). Brown Bomber, you seem fixated on the details of how certain abortions might be carried out, but in fact the details are really quite irrelevant, even if we get squeamish thinking about them.

Many medical procedures are gruesome to the lay person.

Open heart surgery is a good thing yet many people would prefer not to see it done. I have had major eye surgery which could be considered completely gruesome and horrific, but it saved my eyesight, and nobody would claim that such eye surgery should be banned because it is somehow "barbaric". I will spare you the gruesome details because they are irrelevant.

Granted, but abortion is destructive by design to terminate life whereas heart surgery, eye surgery and so on is intented to improve life. It is not "barbaric" in the sense of "eww guts" it is barbaric in the sense that you are

tearing a living creatures body limb from limb

or

slicing their head open to remove their brain and crush their little skulls before disposing of them.

with the assumption that they feel pain it enters into becoming inhumane.

Turtwig

Abortion can often be intended to improve the quality of life of the woman. This may also include her husband and children. Pregnancy is a physical condition. It isn't a case of just popping a baby out the other side.

eireannBEAR

graphic dont look if you are sensitive

MOD SNIP

do you really want this??

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Granted, but abortion is destructive by design to terminate life whereas heart surgery, eye surgery and so on is intented to improve life. It is not "barbaric" in the sense of "eww guts" it is barbaric in the sense that you are

tearing a living creatures body limb from limb

or

slicing their head open to remove their brain and crush their little skulls before disposing of them.

with the assumption that they feel pain it enters into becoming inhumane.

I disagree - I think you completely missed my point. Dwelling on the details and describing them a certain way (e.g. slicing open rather than making an incision) is exactly what I'm talking about.

swampgas

eireannBEAR wrote: »

graphic dont look if you are sensitive

MOD SNIP

do you really want this??

Again, do you want to see a video of an orbital decompression (a form of eye surgery) ? I don't think you do, but not because there is anything ethically wrong with it.

eireannBEAR

swampgas wrote: »

Again, do you want to see a video of an orbital decompression (a form of eye surgery) ? I don't think you do, but not because there is anything ethically wrong with it.

eye surgery really?? so you looked at my link and found it comparable to eye surgery do you really believe thats an appropriate comparison? :pac:

swampgas

eireannBEAR wrote: »

eye surgery really?? so you looked at my link and found it comparable to eye surgery do you really believe thats an appropriate comparison? :pac:

I didn't look at your link. I have no intention of looking at your link. I refuse to play along with your "here's an icky picture, therefore I'm right" game. Try making a reasoned argument instead, I'm prepared to listen and debate it.

The point I'm making (repeatedly, it seems) is that you can't claim that something is wrong simply because it's difficult to look at or because pictures of it have shock value.

TheChizler

Personally I'd find eye surgery more squeamish. But nobody here wants to see either of those things and I don't think they're relevant in any case. What does it matter how a procedure is carried out once the only person witnessing it (foetus is either unconscious or hasn't yet developed a consciousness) is the surgeon and medical staff, who are there through their own free will.

Do we care how meat is processed, graphically that is? Once the creature has been sedated it's all pretty irrelevant from their point of view.

Edit: And I think unconscious would be pushing it in the vast-vast majority of cases. Sedated would be more appropriate.

eireannBEAR

swampgas wrote: »

I didn't look at your link. I have no intention of looking at your link. I refuse to play along with your "here's an icky picture, therefore I'm right" game. Try making a reasoned argument instead, I'm prepared to listen and debate it.

The point I'm making (repeatedly, it seems) is that you can't claim that something is wrong simply because it's difficult to look at or because pictures of it have shock value.

then why did you even respond to my post,lol ah then your answer was invalid. well thats ok.

swampgas

eireannBEAR wrote: »

then why did you even respond to my post,lol ah then your answer was invalid. well thats ok.

Cheap shot. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

Brown Bomber

ire

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wait, your previous link said you can't supply enough anaesthetic via the mother to numb the foetus, yet this link here says that is exactly what happens. From your own link:


Which one is it Brown Bomber? It can't be both.

No, I disputed based on why would they go via the mother when they could just give it directly to the foetus. a) and b) were used to dispute the prevalence of partial birth abortions

I'm not convinced that a foetus can receive it directly unless a caesarian is performed and you haven't shown why you think so either.

Nor am I convinced that you have shown anything to refute that a foetus can receive the required dose of anesthetic that would guarantee zero pain that doesn't endanger the mother. The surgery in the link is a "minimal invasive procedure" with tiny tools and was to remove 1cm of tissue. As well as this it's not clear what stage of development the lamb foetus was at.

I've read up a little on Dr Anand. He's a remarkable man, who like me thinks abortion should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. When the medical consensus was that newborns weren't developed enough to feel pain and they were operated on without anesthetic it was he who proved otherwise. Now, thanks to him it would be considered "barbaric" to perform surgery on a newborn without an anesthetic.

When he says that a foetus cannot be sufficently anesethised to avoid the incredible pain he believes it is likely to feel without risking the health of the mother I am inclined to believe him in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary.

eireannBEAR

swampgas wrote: »

Cheap shot. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

what??? you posted in response to me,no i dont have a point for you,sure you dont even know what i posted. how could i!!