Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 255
  1. #181  
    Interesting trend emerging in most of these threads - overwhelming science and statistics support a theory on one side and the other finds nuanced exceptions to the larger body of evidence to justify and perpetuate their rhetoric.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Interesting trend emerging in most of these threads - overwhelming science and statistics support a theory on one side and the other finds nuanced exceptions to the larger body of evidence to justify and perpetuate their rhetoric.
    I can appreciate such an observation regarding evolution. What theory related to D&X is supported by science and statistics?
  3. #183  
    As I begin reading on uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, and heart failure, I could not see why:

    1. abortion was necessary
    2. even if abortion was to be performed that D&X was necessary over inducement or D&E

    The ugent need for chemotherapy gave me brief pause, as I could see why you wouldn't want the baby subjected to the chemo. But, then I realized that inducement provides the same opportunity for removing the baby from the womb.

    Even if the pregnancy was causing complication, the baby could be delivered. Your pulling the baby out by the feet anyway, up to the base of the skull. What's 5 more inches?

    I'm open to someone connecting the dots for me. I just don't see the necessity of D&X.

    NOTE: In this discussion my interest is understanding why this particular procedure is necessary.
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I figured since you offered that inducing labor was an option the that D&X was not of necessity.
    You must have missed the part about induced labour being undesirable for the health and safety of the mother. I assume by linking to the pdf you in some way wish to share your horror at the procedure, there are medical realities which you are not facing up to.

    1) If the mother can labour, she cant labour.
    2) Is severing the brain stem a worse way to kill a baby than suffocation.
    3) The head if the main problem in labour, and sucking out the brains solves that problem.

    If you are so concerned by the procedure why not suggest a viable alternative suitable for the 3000 cases a year its needed for?

    Surur
  5. #185  
    Actually I was referring more so to the issues of evolution and gun control. And if you missed it earlier, I am against late term abortions UNLESS there are mitigating circumstances such as the following (taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm):

    - The fetus is already dead.
    - The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
    - The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
    - The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

    It appears that there are fewer than 3,000 of these procedures annually (interesting side note: even if these were all viable/normal babies it would be less than the 5,000 children that die because of guns annually...I guess those deaths are OK though because of our right to bear arms) but admittedly I cannot tell you what percentage of the 3,000 were normal pregnancies with no complications vs. those that fall in the categories listed above.

    What I have tried to be consistent in saying is that the law should be upheld but I feel there needs to be stronger language that supports the rights of women who fall into the categories above.
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    You must have missed the part about induced labour being undesirable for the health and safety of the mother.
    No. You only stated it was undesireable. You did not say why.
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I don't understand your response fully. The above reasons (uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, heart failure and things like maternal cancer needing urgent chemotherapy may only have onset in the later pregnancy and preclude labor and abdominal surgery. ) would necessitate late term abortions for the health and safety of the mother, and dilation and extraction is really the only way to do this besides inducing labor, which would be undesirable for someone with .... (uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, heart failure and things like maternal cancer needing urgent chemotherapy may only have onset in the later pregnancy and preclude labor and abdominal surgery. )....
    Surur
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I assume by linking to the pdf you in some way wish to share your horror at the procedure
    No. I figured, sense we were going with the medical name for the procedure, it was worth reading the technical description as well
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    , there are medical realities which you are not facing up to.

    1) If the mother can labour, she cant labour.
    Why does her inability to labor require the death of the child?
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    2) Is severing the brain stem a worse way to kill a baby than suffocation.
    no
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    3) The head if the main problem in labour, and sucking out the brains solves that problem.

    If you are so concerned by the procedure why not suggest a viable alternative suitable for the 3000 cases a year its needed for?

    Surur
    I was waiting for a demonstration of the need
  7. #187  
    Here's the deal. If the conclusion is reached that abortion is a "right" the methodology is a non-issue.

    I admit, I believe it's all heinous. I find D&X particularly disturbing. Especially reading how one of the originators (I believe) describes it as an easier way to destroy given that the older child has tougher skin and bones).

    In other words D&X is not necessary, its just easier.

    I see a direct connection between how casually one can discuss dismembering (D&E) or severing the brain stem of (D&X) a defenseless child and how indiscriminantly one can shoot and kill 32 unarmed people.
  8. #188  
    Of course if there are viable medical alternatives then by all means they should be more desireable. However, since I suspect you're not a doctor (nor am I) it seems this debate boils down to deciding who is qualified to deem the procedure a necessity (in rare circumstances) - to which I am pretty sure the supreme court does not fit that bill.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    In other words D&X is not necessary, its just easier.
    Foul! False premise. Over-simplifying your characterization to 'just easier' is an grossly unqualified argument which ultimately undermines your argument.

    I see a direct connection between how casually one can discuss dismembering (D&E) or severing the brain stem of (D&X) a defenseless child and how indiscriminantly one can shoot and kill 32 unarmed people.
    Foul! False premise. Either learn from an independent (of political propaganda) source what the nature of this procedure is and why it is deemed necessary by the physicians you fundamentally disagree with. You present the premise and it is dependent upon you to support it, not others. I suggest www.nih.gov or www.cdc.gov

    This is the deal! Intact D&X, as a subject matter, cannot be discussed in isolation. The greater subject of abortion/abortion rights is the subject where Intact D&X exists and cannot be separated (with integrity) from it.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Right. Exactly. If they had buried that specimen and a paleantologist had come along later and found it, he probably would have said something like, "This has all the characteristics of a million year old fossil, so it must be!"
    Yes, because fossils are simply identified by someone looking at something they dig up.



    First off all, it didn't have ALL of the characteristics, it has SOME of the characteristic - IE, it was on it's way to becomming a fossil.

    Secondly, EVEN IF IT HAS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS of a million year old fossil, if it was buried in three year old sand pit, I suspect any competent paleonologist would have immediately questioned why a "millon year old fossil" was buried in a three year old sand pit.

    Thirdly, carbon dating and other dating techniques would immediately idenitfiy it as NOT a million years old.

    I don't know what your view of paleontology is, but they don't simply walk around, pick up something they think might be a fossil, and suddenly declare it to be a million year old fossil.

    Lastly, as I said, READ THE EXPERIMENT. It was designed to try and figure out the fossilization process. In the experiment, the bird bones were subjected to abnormally high pressure, to mimic long term pressure from sediment build up. If something was just buried and NOT subjected to this pressure, it wouldn't has developed the same characteristics. In addition, the bones were STARTING to have some similarities to fossils, they weren't IDENTICAL to them. This indicates that the pressure process seems to play a key role in creating fossils. Finally, the key factor they were testing was the speed of burial - how FAST something is covered in sand. And based on the study, the hypothesized that in order to become a fossil, something has to be buried very quickly, not just sit around and gradually get covered by mud/sand/dirt. They never actually MADE fossils, they just started AND SPED UP what they think the process would be.

    I applaud your effort to try to use science to bolster your side, but make sure you read the research first.

    Chris
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    As I begin reading on uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, and heart failure, I could not see why:

    1. abortion was necessary
    Because pregnancy CAUSES these conditions, which are leading causes for maternal mortality. When you are 5 months along, and your condition is just getting worse and worse, and you are already so ill with a blood sugar of 30 or a BP of 220/160, you are not going to be in
    a) any condition to carry the baby to a viable term and
    b) needs to be relieved from a rather malignant pregnancy ASAP. Thats why abortion is medically indicated to save the life of the mother. Obviously in that state the mother is not fit to labour either.

    2. even if abortion was to be performed that D&X was necessary over inducement or D&E
    Inducement still involved labour, which is undesirable when you are very ill, and in D&E (basically chopping up the baby in the womb and sucking it out) the parts are too big to pass down the vacuum tube. I don't see how that procedure is qualitatively any different from D&X either.

    The ugent need for chemotherapy gave me brief pause, as I could see why you wouldn't want the baby subjected to the chemo. But, then I realized that inducement provides the same opportunity for removing the baby from the womb.
    The mother may be very ill, too ill to labour, and as I said D&E is not suitable later in pregnancy.

    Even if the pregnancy was causing complication, the baby could be delivered. Your pulling the baby out by the feet anyway, up to the base of the skull. What's 5 more inches?
    You clearly dont understand delivery and labour. Why does taking the baby's head 5 inches in the first place take 8-16 hours? Getting the head past the cervix is what labour is all about.

    I'm open to someone connecting the dots for me. I just don't see the necessity of D&X.
    I hope all your dots are connected how.

    Surur
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #192  
    ^ @ cjvitek That subject has moved here -->http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=141719
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, what tests have been performed about evolution? What tests can be performed to test evolution. According to the scientific method, which you just stated, something has to be able to be tested to fall under science. There is no way you can test evolution. Or maybe I'm wrong. A bit of irony here: You know, scientists for decades have been trying to create life in the laboratory to prove that life was not created by an intelligent being.
    You are confusing two things commonly confused. The origin of life, and evolution. Evolution is NOT about explaining the origin of life. The origin of life is speculative, with a range of ideas. EVOLUTION, on the other hand, is about how life changes, not how it began.

    As for experiments on evolution, there are a wide number of them. Both laboratory experiments and field experiments, as well as observational experiments. New species have been observed being created in the field, as well as in laboratory experiments. If you like, I can post some of the link for further reading.



    Okay, I'll give you that, but as far as the paleantologists are concerned dinosaurs died out millions of years before man, right? Then how do human footprints end up right beside dinosaur footprints in Dinosaur Valley State park? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
    Ummm...read this

    Basically, they probably aren't human footprints.



    According to the article you posted above, it states that evolution is possible if the entropy decreases in an object while the entropy increases in it's surroundings. If evolution is the case, why then do we not see new species of animals evolving before our eyes?
    We do. There are examples of natural systems where we see new species (species that are reproductively isolated from the previous generation).

    The crocodile is a great example. Why hasn't the crocodile evolved into a bi-pedal reptile? They have found fossils of crocodiles from "millions" of years ago, and they look exactly the same as crocodiles of today, only larger (and this can be explained by the fact that reptiles continue to grow their entire lives, so what would a 200 year old crocodile look like? the fossils from"millions of years ago). Why no change? According to evolution, the species (since it seems to be one of the fittest) would have evolved and changed over time.
    Why would crocodiles evolve into a be-pedal reptile? They are an extremely successful species as they are - there is little to no slective pressure to have them evolve into a bi-pedal form. The fact that they have been around for millions or years in pretty much the same form is PROOF of their success - proof of the idea that there is little evolutionary pressure for them to change. Things don't change just because they want to - organisms evolve because a new form or new adaptation has greater reproductive success than the previous form (and some would argue just survival success, but that can be folded into reproductive success).

    As for 200 years old crocs being huge - since we don't know of any 200 year old crocodiles, it is speculation (ie, a hypothesis) that they would continue to grow even at that age.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 04/24/2007 at 09:28 AM.
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Either we argue all abortion, partial birth abortion or evolution, but we cant do all three at the same time. I am not amazed however that the biggest opponents of these therapeutic abortions are also so anti-science.

    Surur
    Isn't this the off topic room though? If so, it's appropriate that these threads go "off topic" every now and then.

    However, I apologize for derailing the topic. IF someone wants to post elsewhere, I will be happy to followup there.

    Chris
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually I was referring more so to the issues of evolution and gun control. And if you missed it earlier, I am against late term abortions UNLESS there are mitigating circumstances such as the following (taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm):

    - The fetus is already dead.
    - The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
    - The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
    - The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

    It appears that there are fewer than 3,000 of these procedures annually (interesting side note: even if these were all viable/normal babies it would be less than the 5,000 children that die because of guns annually...I guess those deaths are OK though because of our right to bear arms) but admittedly I cannot tell you what percentage of the 3,000 were normal pregnancies with no complications vs. those that fall in the categories listed above.

    What I have tried to be consistent in saying is that the law should be upheld but I feel there needs to be stronger language that supports the rights of women who fall into the categories above.

    Surely you're not suggesting that we put a ban on all doctors as well
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post

    Surely you're not suggesting that we put a ban on all doctors as well
    Doctors, no. Lawyers....now there's a thought.
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Doctors, no. Lawyers....now there's a thought.
    With the Supreme Court allowing this heinous bill to stand, providing no exception for the health of the woman, there will only be an increase in judicial intervention.
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Foul! False premise. Over-simplifying your characterization to 'just easier' is an grossly unqualified argument which ultimately undermines your argument.
    Perhaps you should review Dr. Haskell's paper. I opted to use his characterization as his opinion seems more qualified. His summary offers this insight:
    In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in the third trimester.

    Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.

    Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree of surgical skill, and my not be appropriate for a few patients
    Granted, "high degree of sugical skill" is not normally considered "easy" except that we are dealing with doctors, and the procedure was in its infancy at the time. I would guess that medical experts have developed the requisite skill.


    Incidentally, in reviewing the document, you'll note no refernce to necessity. though you do see that there was crtieria for patient selection:

    The author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 week LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
    I have not done much study prior to this conversation, so I concede that the selection critera may have become more refined.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Foul! False premise. Either learn from an independent (of political propaganda) source what the nature of this procedure is and why it is deemed necessary by the physicians you fundamentally disagree with. You present the premise and it is dependent upon you to support it, not others. I suggest www.nih.gov or www.cdc.gov

    This is the deal! Intact D&X, as a subject matter, cannot be discussed in isolation. The greater subject of abortion/abortion rights is the subject where Intact D&X exists and cannot be separated (with integrity) from it.
    Could you provide direct links? The nih site has links to many informative sources, but I did not readily find links to articles regarding the circumstances under which D&X is performed. The cdc site turned up a study of abortion that focused on frequency of occurence and related demographics rather rationale for of methodology (table 8 does provide statistics by type, but D&X is not called out).

    As an aside, the Supreme Court decision should come as no surprise given Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion making a distinction between D&X versus D&E.
  19. #199  
    To you, what is the essential difference between D&E and D&X which makes one acceptable and the other not?

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/24/2007 at 11:51 AM.
  20. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Perhaps you should review Dr. Haskell's paper. I opted to use his characterization as his opinion seems more qualified. His summary offers this insight:

    Granted, "high degree of sugical skill" is not normally considered "easy" except that we are dealing with doctors, and the procedure was in its infancy at the time. I would guess that medical experts have developed the requisite skill.

    Incidentally, in reviewing the document, you'll note no refernce to necessity. though you do see that there was crtieria for patient selection:

    I have not done much study prior to this conversation, so I concede that the selection critera may have become more refined.
    Since 1992, of course skills and patient selection [which defines medical necessity outside of traumatic health/injury] have not been refined. That may negatively effect profits.


    Could you provide direct links? The nih site has links to many informative sources, but I did not readily find links to articles regarding the circumstances under which D&X is performed.
    It was your argument, therefore incumbent upon you to provide foundation. I won't do that for you.

    The cdc site turned up a study of abortion that focused on frequency of occurence and related demographics rather rationale for of methodology (table 8 does provide statistics by type, but D&X is not called out).
    Not called out because it is seen as that insignificant in that 1.4% statistic which includes non-surgical, Hysterotomy/Hysterectomy cases, etc. which is still 18% lower than Pre-Roe (1973) statistics which do not include the additional methods.

    Much seems morbid to the layman whose practice does not involve surgery. Even many non-surgical physicians cannot stomach the surgical area of expertise. Many procedures can be illustrated to make the reader repulse at the thought. This is not the standard by which professionals operate, however.
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/24/2007 at 11:58 AM.

Posting Permissions