Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazybones32

Jayop wrote: »

That was one example of a high profile case of someone who's life would likely have been saved by having an abortion. It is semantics for you to try to point out that because no-one can possibly say definitively whether it would have saved her but in all likelihood it would have, or at the very least it would have given her a much greater chance of survival.

Is Dr Boylan adhering to a misinformed version of what happened?



If he is then please tell me where he's wrong and what part of the report specifically says he is.

Both yourself and Black Menorca are great at saying "watch the video" or "read the report" but you seem incapable of actually giving a proper citation to any of your posts but use vagaries to dismiss others.

Sweet Georgia Brown!
I've already cited the official report, but I guess you missed that?

Does abortion cure sepsis? Does it treat resistant strains of e-coli? Does it supply for the inattention of doctors, nurses and midwifes?

Let me know if you can understand my semantics...this English language is so hard to communicate clearly in.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm not the arbiter of Federal birth control programmes.

That didn't stop you from volunteering an opinion earlier about what the Federal birth control programmers should fund. But as it happens, that's not what I asked at all.

So, you don't have the courage to say what you believe. That's okay, we get that. I'd possibly be the same, if I believed the sort of misogynistic rubbish you do.

Black Menorca

lazybones32 wrote: »

Sweet Georgia Brown!
I've already cited the official report, but I guess you missed that?

Does abortion cure sepsis? Does it treat resistant strains of e-coli? Does it supply for the inattention of doctors, nurses and midwifes?

Let me know if you can understand my semantics...this English language is so hard to communicate clearly in.

Great post.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

That didn't stop you from volunteering an opinion earlier about what the Federal birth control programmers should fund. But as it happens, that's not what I asked at all.

So, you don't have the courage to say what you believe. That's okay, we get that. I'd possibly be the same, if I believed the sort of misogynistic rubbish you do.

Way to go with the insulting, judgemental, personal attack.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Way to go with the insulting, judgemental, personal attack.

You were asked a simple question about contraception which you spent three or more posts trying to dodge. It's not a personal attack to conclude that this is because you feel that the truth about your beliefs on the subject would only discredit you.

Two Sheds

Black Menorca wrote: »

There are Federal programmes already in place throughout the US who can provide said services.

Life after the nefarious PP will be just dandy.

It pays to fund Planned Parenthood. A dead poor kid is one less expense on the state.

That's the reasoning.

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

Great post.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Way to go with the insulting, judgemental, personal attack.

Black menorca you're beyond irony. You quote a smart arsed insulting post and say it was great than in the very next post you accuse someone of being insulting and judgemental.

It's pathetic.

As for lazy bones, in my post composing that you always reply to requests for citations with 'read the report' or 'watch the video' by telling me to 'read the report'.

You get a lot of rope in here, more than I'm comfortable keeping on wasting my time trying to have a sensible sidebars with.

lazybones32

Jayop wrote: »

As for lazy bones, in my post composing that you always reply to requests for citations with 'read the report' or 'watch the video' by telling me to 'read the report'.

You get a lot of rope in here, more than I'm comfortable keeping on wasting my time trying to have a sensible sidebars with.

Thank God for small mercies....interacting with you is like hitting my head against a wall. I actually feel dumber for having done so.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

As I said, Republicans will pour a fortune into such programmes if it will mean putting PP out of business.

You demonstrably have not the faintest grasp of american politics then. Republicans not only hate the idea of public option aka government-run healthcare, they also deeply despise the idea of spending money on social programs. They've spent years railing against the Affordable Care Act and for many republicans it has been a staple promise-and-action of theirs to attempt ad nauseum to repeal the ACA, unsuccessfully. They have pressed for at least 54 votes (as of may 2014) that have tried and all failed to repeal ACA and have to date failed even once to introduce an alternative bill that might replace the ACA - they just want it gone and they have no interest in anything replacing it; They have threatened government-shutdown on several occasions to that effect; why do you at all get the idea that they would fund other healthcare programs?!

Overheal

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Black Menorca wrote: »

Way to go with the insulting, judgemental, personal attack.

Jayop wrote: »

Black menorca you're beyond irony. You quote a smart arsed insulting post and say it was great than in the very next post you accuse someone of being insulting and judgemental.

It's pathetic.

I would remind you both that an instruction was posted to remind all posters to report problematic posts, not to discuss them on-thread.

I hope not to have to post a third time on this subject.

Back on topic please.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Thank God for small mercies....interacting with you is like hitting my head against a wall. I actually feel dumber for having done so.

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic and refrain from getting personal.

Thanks for your attention.

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

Quackery.

Source: Sepsis Alliance

Infections can develop anywhere in your mouth – in the gums (periodontal), lips, palate, cheeks, and tongue, or within and below teeth (endodontic). A dental infection, within or below a tooth, can be caused by tooth decay or a broken tooth that causes the pulp to become infected. The pulp is the part of the tooth that contains blood vessels, connective tissue, and large nerves. When an infection occurs, bacteria can move out of the tooth to the bone or tissue below, forming a dental abscess.

I think she might have had a little more knowledge about Sepsis than a "quack".

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

By the lunch’s end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

Now for my track on the broken record...

robdonn wrote: »

Even look at the prices, $30-$100 per specimen. How could you possibly think they're making a profit from that after handling and transportation is taken care of? Nobody thinks they are trying to profit from this, Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” said that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.”

Sherilyn J. Sawyer wrote:

In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

Similar statements have been given by Jim Vaught (president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research) and Carolyn Compton (chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute).

And, as we state over and over, the Lamborghini comment was a tasteless joke, nothing more.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: “I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen.”

And.... what? Manual Vacuum Aspiration is a normal, safe and commonly used procedure. The only difference being that it has a higher chance of getting more intact specimens.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

And, as we state over and over, the Lamborghini comment was a tasteless joke, nothing more.

It demonstrated the context of the discussion - i.e. profit.
Otherwise, why make it?

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

It demonstrated the context of the discussion - i.e. profit.
Otherwise, why make it?

Because they were talking about money, not profit. Attempting to dissect a joke only shows a lack of confidence in the rest of your argument.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

It demonstrated the context of the discussion - i.e. profit.
Otherwise, why make it?

So someone makes a stupid joke and you're suggesting that's somehow proving that there's illegal profiteering taking place? You realise that's just silly, right?

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Because they were talking about money, not profit. Attempting to dissect a joke only shows a lack of confidence in the rest of your argument.

You don't buy a Lamborghini by covering your expenses. There's no need to dissect the joke. It clearly alluded to making a profit. That's why it was made.
It makes no sense in the context of costs. In that context, it's just and out of place remark which would bring a quizzical expression to the listener.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

You don't buy a Lamborghini by covering your expenses. There's no need to dissect the joke. It clearly alluded to making a profit. That's why it was made.
It makes no sense in the context of costs. In that context, it's just and out of place remark which would bring a quizzical expression to the listener.

*sigh*

She made an ironic joke. She couldn't possibly afford a Lamborghini via the business of providing donated foetal tissue to labs because it's illegal to make a profit.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

You don't buy a Lamborghini by covering your expenses. There's no need to dissect the joke. It clearly alluded to making a profit. That's why it was made.
It makes no sense in the context of costs. In that context, it's just and out of place remark which would bring a quizzical expression to the listener.

hinault

robdonn wrote: »

I think she might have had a little more knowledge about Sepsis than a "quack".

Would you go to an optician if you were suffering from heart palpitations?

Quackery.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

Would you go to an optician if you were suffering from heart palpitations?

Quackery.

You keep using that word.

If you were talking about homeopathy you might have a point.

hinault

hinault wrote: »

Would you go to an optician if you were suffering from heart palpitations?

Quackery.

Nobody went to a dentist with sepsis.

Why are you presenting this as some sort of defence?

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

So someone makes a stupid joke and you're suggesting that's somehow proving that there's illegal profiteering taking place? You realise that's just silly, right?

Illegal profiteering is an interesting phrase that you use.

Do I detect that you're acknowledging that these butchers are profiteering?
If so this represents progress on your part.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Would you go to an optician if you were suffering from heart palpitations?

Quackery.

Do you dispute the post you quoted?

hinault

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody went to a dentist with sepsis.

Why are you presenting this as some sort of defence?

I'm not presenting it as a defence.

Some here suggest that because someone is "qualified" in dentistry, that this gives them the insight to diagnose correctly whether an abortion is the best remedy for sepsis.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

Do you dispute the post you quoted?

I don't recall disputing anything.

Quackery is quackery.

hinault

hinault wrote: »

I'm not presenting it as a defence.

Some here suggest that because someone is "qualified" in dentistry, that this gives them the insight to diagnose correctly whether an abortion is the best remedy for sepsis.

Nobody suggested that once.

What was suggested was;

volchitsa wrote: »

FWIW she was a dentist, so would certainly have had some knowledge of the risks and symptoms of sepsis....

and

robdonn wrote: »

Source: Sepsis Alliance
I think she might have had a little more knowledge about Sepsis than a "quack".

Would you care to attack either of these posts and not the strawman that you've built?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Illegal profiteering is an interesting phrase that you use.

Do I detect that you're acknowledging that these butchers are profiteering?
If so this represents progress on your part.

PP are legally not allowed sell foetal tissue for profit. I've yet to see evidence they have broken the law.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

I don't recall disputing anything.

Quackery is quackery.

So quoted a post that had no relation to your question about opticians?