Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
HOWTO: Perform the Dilation & Curettage Surgical Procedure

By ti dave in Science
Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:40:02 PM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

This procedure involves opening of the cervix and scraping away of the endometrium, or inner lining of the uterus.

Disclaimer:
You should seek supervised practice, prior to attempting the procedure yourself.
Never forcefully perform this procedure. Uterine perforation can easily result.
Always use sterile equipment.

Dilation & Curettage is indicated for abnormal, or post-menarchal bleeding, spontaneous (incomplete) abortions, or therapeutic abortions under an oppressive regime.
Contraindications include normal, desired intrauterine pregnancy, acute cervicitis, endometriosis, or pelvic inflammatory disease.


The procedure may be performed under general anaesthesia, spinal (level of L3-L4 spine, inject 10-15 cc. of 0.25% Marcaine carefully), paracervical block (0.25% Marcaine injected just inside the vaginal mucosa, next to the cervix on each side, 5 cc.) or 50-75 mg. Demerol IV slow drip while monitoring the patient's vital signs carefully.

    Perform the Dilation & Curettage Procedure:

  • Insert a comfortably warm, sterile speculum into the vagina. Ask the patient, if conscious, to relax and bear down.
  • While carefully spreading the labia with a gloved hand, insert the speculum blades slowly downward and inward, watching the insertion closely.
  • As the cervix is approached, slowly open the blades and allow the blades to straddle the cervix between them. Lock the screw lock of the speculum.
  • Wipe the entire cervical stump three times, in a circular fashion outward, with antiseptic sponges on transfer forceps.
  • Discard the swabs and forceps.
  • Bend the uterine sound to the estimated angle of the uterine position.
  • Grasp the cervix with a tenaculum forcep at the six o' clock position and gently insert the sound until resistance is met. Here, you will again try to note any lesions or growths, as you insert the sound. Read the depth of the uterine cavity by noting the level of the mucous or blood on the sound, as you would the oil level on a dipstick.
  • Make a mental note of the depth of the uterine cavity.
  • Starting with the smallest Hegar dilator, insert the dilator into the cervix, to the dilator lip.
  • Proceed to the next larger size, until the cervix is at least as open as the loop of the largest curette, probably a #8 Hegar.
  • Start with a small, sharp curette by scraping the entire diameter of the cervical canal with an in and out motion.
  • Repeat the four-quadrant scraping of the uterus by going to the depth of the uterus and scraping outward all along the uterine walls, in deep, even strokes, so as to obtain long strips of endometrium. Ensure that all endometrial tissue is removed from the inner surface of the uterus.
  • Curette the top of the uterus in an up-and-down fashion and remove all endometrial tissue.
  • Insert a dry, sterile sponge on a uterine forcep and swab the uterine cavity, using a twisting motion as you withdraw the forceps.
  • Re-insert uterine polyp forceps and grasp for masses.
  • Withdraw the forceps and observe for bleeding.

    Post-Operative Care:

  • Replace the uterus, by removing the tenaculum and speculum and using both hands, push the uterus gently, but firmly, upward.
  • Place patient on bed rest for 3 days and limit the patient's activity for at least 7 days.
  • Excessive bleeding may require packing the uterine cavity with long, continuous sterile roller gauze and observing for shock, until the patient is out of danger and hemostasis is achieved.
  • Monitor patient for any signs of infection during the recovery period.
  • Tend to patient's emotional needs and concerns during the recovery period.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o scraping away
o menarchal
o Contraindi cations
o mucosa
o cervix
o Marcaine
o Demerol
o Transfer forceps
o Tenaculum forceps
o Hegar dilators [various sizes]
o Curettes
o Uterine polyp forceps
o hemostasis
o signs of infection
o Also by ti dave


Display: Sort:
HOWTO: Perform the Dilation & Curettage Surgical Procedure | 357 comments (245 topical, 112 editorial, 0 hidden)
Questions: (2.46 / 13) (#1)
by maynard on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 09:11:44 PM EST

Are you a physician?

Do you think the general K5 community could use this information toward any purpose?

While this appears factually informative (I'm not competent to say), does it offer contrasting opinion leading toward a conclusion like a traditional essay?

Do you think this submission offers real discussion potential?

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Why not? (3.00 / 27) (#11)
by elenchos on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 10:53:15 PM EST

If K5 can post a front-page article written by a software monkey telling economists how to do their jobs, why can't we post an article by an ex-Delta Force commando telling gynecologists how to do theirs?

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Eh... (1.75 / 4) (#14)
by maynard on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 11:48:26 PM EST

...if it's voted up - whatever. Wonder if it generates any interesting threads though... --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Look no further, my friend! (3.00 / 11) (#22)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:30:07 AM EST

Is not this very thread one of the most interesting discussions we have seen here or at any other web site? Whether this article gets voted up or down, I will always cherish this time we had together, and no one can ever take that away.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Well, I must admit... (none / 1) (#254)
by maynard on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:30:49 PM EST

...this submission has generated a shit-load of comments. So... whatever. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Seconded. (none / 2) (#35)
by alby on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:03:36 AM EST

It's just an article.

--
Alby
[ Parent ]

Really? (3.00 / 3) (#59)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:23:07 PM EST

Was ti dave in the Delta Force?

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Sure. Didn't you know? (none / 3) (#66)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 02:58:01 PM EST

(nt)

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Answers: (3.00 / 8) (#26)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 04:14:21 AM EST

No, I am not a physician. However, that said, this is not an essay.
It is an informational composition, like the bread-making story that garnered a passing vote last year.

I am open to any conversation-generating threads that arise from this submission.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Thanks ti dave (2.55 / 9) (#47)
by maynard on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:56:27 AM EST

I can't vote this up. It's well edited, clean, and the links appear good; formatting isn't the problem. Also, it's not the topic, I published an article in '95 on the off-label prescribing of methotrexate as an abortifacient back before RU-486 was FDA approved. I don't have a problem with the topic. This is just so you know it's not personal or ideoogical, so here are the reasons why:

- You're not qualified to perform this procedure, nor are you qualified to give advice or answers to anyone who asks specific technical/medical questions.

- Unlike the HOWTO bake bread, or the homeroasting coffee articles of the past, attempts at actually performing this procedure by nearly anyone here will likely result in death of the patient. No one sane would try. Compare that to baking bread, where everyone here has an oven and anyone could make use of the information, and you'll see the difference.

- There's no way for any of us to determine if what you've posted is factually correct. I sure as hell don't know.

BTW: I'd love to read an article of your experiences in the special forces. Just a request... Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

That is no more certain than... (3.00 / 6) (#48)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:11 AM EST

saying that the reader will likely die on the highway, if they follow the instructions of their traffic education teacher.

This isn't rocket science and I think the functioning of the human body should be de-mystified.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
No offense dave, but... (3.00 / 6) (#50)
by maynard on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 10:52:09 AM EST

...performing a DNC isn't analogous to driving a car. Further, when a licensed OB/GYN says:

"This isn't rocket science and I think the functioning of the human body should be de-mystified."

and posts what appears to be the specifics of a DNC procedure, I'll listen much more carefully than when a layperson says the same. JMO though. Good luck on the success of your article. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

You may not think about it, but... (2.75 / 4) (#126)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 01:51:18 AM EST

Driving safely is a pretty complicated task.
You do it correctly by practicing.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Not to show my bias or nothing, but... (none / 1) (#201)
by maynard on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:08:54 PM EST

...I think a DNC is something I don't want to practice... JMO though. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Who cares about accuracy? (2.83 / 6) (#51)
by spcmanspiff on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:12:23 AM EST

I think the best part of the article is the fact that you've actually got no idea whether it's factual or not.

"You're not qualified to perform this procedure, nor are you qualified to give advice or answers to anyone who asks specific technical/medical questions."

If current trends in American Gubmint have their way, nobody will be qualified to perform this procedure or to give this type of advice ...

 

[ Parent ]

Well... (2.62 / 8) (#53)
by maynard on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:29:01 AM EST

I think the best part of the article is the fact that you've actually got no idea whether it's factual or not.

Well, by definition neither does ti dave. I mean, any of us could go grab a medical textbook or PDR and offer its contents to the queue. Doesn't make that person (or the readership) qualified to understand its contents.

If current trends in American Gubmint have their way, nobody will be qualified to perform this procedure or to give this type of advice ...

This is both true (and IMO) lamentable. But even if Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion criminalized, ti dave would be the last person I would bring my GF to for an abortion. Not because I dislike ti dave, but because he has never been a licensed practicing OB/GYN, he has never even performed the procedure, and would have no idea how to resolve a dangerous complication. He is not qualified for the valid reason that he is not a physician. Which makes the comparison to the current US political debate on abortion rights irrelevant. JMO.

But I'm not freaking out over whether this submission lives or dies. I'm all for letting it sort out in voting, whatever the outcome. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Hrrrmm... (2.75 / 4) (#93)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:12:28 PM EST

Doesn't make that person (or the readership) qualified to understand its contents.

I don't know if you read my other editorial comments, but I went to great pains in order to make this as easily understandable as possible and I provided definitions to all of the terms that might confuse a middle-school student.

I've provided easily comprehended material, in a format that is user-friendly.
I believe that your concerns over my personal credentials and insistence that no one could possibly be able to follow these instructions, unless they held a med school diploma, to be a strange form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

I'd like you to admit, that there just may be someone on this planet that could find this information to be life-saving.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Probably (3.00 / 3) (#136)
by gyan on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 02:15:21 AM EST

<i>I'd like you to admit, that there just may be someone on this planet that could find this information to be life-saving.</i>

 Only physicians with limited retrograde amnesia.

********************************

[ Parent ]

Does a physician tend to your every ailment? (2.75 / 4) (#139)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:35:34 AM EST

Seriously, if you're capable of reading the instructions for Over-the-Counter medications, the surely you're capable of following the procedure I've described.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
On the other hand, (none / 1) (#219)
by bjlhct on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:53:22 AM EST

Some of this stuff might be hard to obtain for a typical US reader.

In the Delta Force, doing stuff you may know poorly that is likely to be fatal if you mess up with improvised equipment may be necessary sometimes, but here in civilization we tend to do things as safely as possible. There is an element of unwarranted trust in authority, but experience and equipment counts for something.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Verifying (2.80 / 5) (#54)
by Znork on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:41:29 AM EST

"There's no way for any of us to determine if what you've posted is factually correct. I sure as hell don't know."

google is your friend even when it comes to your do-it-yourself surgery information needs. The provided procedure matches up fairly well with the patient flash tutorial (ugh, this is _not_ a hobby I'm picking up any time soon) from the NIH, as well as many other resources.

ti dave's article is a bit more detailed than any of the ones easily locatable in a quick search, but the basic procedure (obtain access to the uterus by dilating the cervix and carefully scrape it to remove unwanted cells) is verifiable. And, as the basic procedure information is easily accessible, this article seems neither more nor less likely to make anyone try it without proper medical training.

Disclaimer: google searches on this subject may provide you with links to graphical images (and flash tutorials) that you may find disturbing and cause nausea and/or lightheadedness.

[ Parent ]

THANKS DAVE (2.60 / 25) (#3)
by Tex Bigballs on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 09:18:12 PM EST

WHO NEEDS EXPENSIVE MEDICAL INSURANCE WHEN ANYONE CAN BE QUALIFIED FOR GINER SURGERY WITH JUST THIS HANDY DANDY GUIDE

You're welcome! (3.00 / 8) (#38)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:53:58 AM EST

Obviously, any woman with safer options should choose accordingly, but in the event that those options are restricted, information saves lives.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Seeing as most of K5's membership is male ... (2.93 / 16) (#5)
by pyramid termite on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 09:37:52 PM EST

... wouldn't instructions for a do-it-yourself vasectomy be more appropriate?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Are you kidding? (2.66 / 9) (#12)
by Tatarigami on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 11:09:37 PM EST

Any girl's going to look at a man who can save her a few dollars by performing a DIY abortion in a new light. ;)

[ Parent ]
yeah... (3.00 / 14) (#19)
by coderlemming on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 12:55:37 AM EST

Like the "get the hell away from me with that coat-hanger" kind of new light.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
I believe it's covered in my source material. (3.00 / 6) (#33)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 04:36:24 AM EST

I'll look into it and if it's light enough, I'll write it up.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Now this is the kind of article I like to see! (2.60 / 10) (#7)
by ninja rmg on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 10:09:30 PM EST

It's this do-it-yourself type of format that initially attracted me to Kuro5hin. Fermented beverages, fermented bread products, and now this! Fantastic!

While my beer, mead, and sourdough bread may still be works in progress, this is a procedure I can complete in just one sitting. Instant Gratification! +1 FP, enthusiastically!



Totally, for sure! (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by gzt on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:49:28 PM EST

Abortion, just for fun, is now available to the masses.

[ Parent ]
Good. (2.91 / 12) (#8)
by Paulsweblog on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 10:17:18 PM EST

How about a guide to liposuction and things more relevant to the lives of most of these geeks? Some instructions on how to build a liposuction machine. Whatever it is.

I'm sure there're plenty of women here who would never do this manually but have the process relevant to them some point in their life. The problem is that it's rare and they're a tiny minority. A liposuction howto would apply to about 4 out of 5 users here, instead of 1 in 25,000.

--
Blood for blood and death for death.

Joking or not... (3.00 / 10) (#15)
by Tatarigami on Mon Mar 22, 2004 at 11:53:55 PM EST

...I've read a News of the Weird article about a pair of women who did attempt a little home-based liposuction using kitchen knives, a dust-buster, and some under-the-counter painkillers.

Hilarity, as you might expect, ensued.

[ Parent ]

ATTENTION KUROBOTS (2.00 / 11) (#16)
by mutualaid on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 12:21:56 AM EST

"Dilation & Curettage Surgical Procedure" == first trimester abortion

Apparently not many of you are medically-saavy.

Not necessarily (3.00 / 10) (#17)
by Stickerboy on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 12:36:53 AM EST

DNCs are called for in a wide range of circumstances, most of them involving uterine bleeding and/or foreign matter that needs to be removed.

"Dilation and curettage" is the technical terminology for "clean it all out".

[ Parent ]

It's not all about baby killing. (3.00 / 6) (#81)
by livus on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:12:33 PM EST

No one seems to have picked up on the fact that D&C - aka "the scrape" is sometimes performed after miscarriages.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
If abortion was illegal in your country... (2.70 / 17) (#18)
by lucifer666 on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 12:38:52 AM EST

I was thinking this article, while seemingly a little off putting, could be an invaluable resource in a country where abortion is illegal.

In Britan in the 40's before the birth control pill, coathanger abortions were everywhere. Many, many women died as a result of undergoing these operations. Possibly even worse, many more women were left baren after irreperable damage was caused.

Regardless of your political or moral viewpoint on abortion being right or wrong, there is still the plain fact that if it's illegal, it's still going to happen. In fact, there's a very good case to say that when it's illegal, a woman is much more likely to be injured or killed as the result of a botched backyard procedure. A bit like pot or speeding, very illegal, but it happens a lot.

Given this fact, even if we say abortion is wrong, it is even more wrong to put peoples lives in danger.

An informative article such as this could in fact be used by a medical professional, in a country that didn't have the procedure in it's text books. There is somewhere a doctor doing abortions wrong, because he's never been shown how to do it properly due to the law in his country. While I can gain little from it in terms of applyable information, I hope he or she reads it.

people dying vs. people dying (1.40 / 5) (#21)
by conthefol on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:26:31 AM EST

people dying wins!

--
kuro5hin is about to E.X.P.L.O.D.E!!!
[ Parent ]

Thanks. That was my hope. (3.00 / 7) (#31)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 04:22:21 AM EST

This information needs to be more freely available.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
How about an Assassination How To? (2.54 / 11) (#46)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:48:40 AM EST

I'm thinking of George Wallace, Larry Flynt, and all the other quadraplegics and paraplegics who have been left cripped by well-meaning, but undertrained and inept assassins. Whether or not you think assassination is wrong, and despite the fact that it is illegal, you can certainly argue it's more humane for a person to be killed outright than spend the rest of their life confined to a wheelchair, without the use of their arms and legs.

Also, a well trained marksman is far less likely to accidentally kill bystanders, I can see how an Assassination How To will greatly reduce collateral damage.

[ Parent ]

Please write one (3.00 / 5) (#83)
by Undesirable Username on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:35:29 PM EST

Just do a thorough job so that you don't end up one of those unlucky quadruplegics.

[ Parent ]
Ask Larry Flint (none / 0) (#253)
by Cheetah on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:24:52 PM EST

I think that, in this case, humane is very much in the eye of the beholder and, more importantly, the victim. I expect that if you were to ask Larry Flint (and probably most victims of botched assassinations) if they'd rather be dead, most of them would tell you "of course not," or something to that extent.

Ask the question of yourself. Which would you rather, never wake up again, or wake up tomorrow with a severe physical disability, but continue living and thinking.

I know what my answer would be. Unless the disability involved continuous pain at the level that took large chunks out of my sanity, I would far rather live on as a cripple than die.

(Ob bystanders: I concur)

[ Parent ]

Requirement (2.14 / 7) (#63)
by Bios_Hakr on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:49:43 PM EST

>Possibly even worse, many more women were left baren after irreperable damage was caused.

One of the prerequisites for an abortion should be sterilization.  If you give up your right to have a kid due to a fuck-up, you should not be allowed to try agian later.


[ Parent ]

word (none / 2) (#67)
by tps12 on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 03:41:55 PM EST

Same deal with condoms.

[ Parent ]
sterlization (none / 2) (#94)
by kellet on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:18:45 PM EST

Amen to that.

[ Parent ]
The Lord has infinite Mercy (2.00 / 5) (#102)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:19:32 PM EST

perhaps some could flow to you.

There are many women who were led astray at a young age, by well-meaning but Godless parents, or by liberalist Planned Parenthooders, into having an abortion. Until abortion is illegal, let's not condemn someone to childlessness for such a sin.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHA... (none / 2) (#107)
by gr3y on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 10:51:17 PM EST

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The voice of baby Jesus tells me you've got a secret.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

Also... (3.00 / 5) (#152)
by kcidx on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:37:12 AM EST

Many women are lead astray by their god fearing parents into actually having the child when they are 14 years old, completely unable to take care of it, and thus both the mothers life and the childs life is ruined.

I would have rather been aborted than live with a bible thumping mother in absolute squalor because she could never finish high school due to being forced by your morals to have me when it was obviously in no ones best interest.

You can take your morals and shove them up your ass.

Or you could be trolling, in which case, bravo!

[ Parent ]

Adoption, not abortion (2.00 / 5) (#161)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 11:53:29 AM EST

Had Dave Thomas's birth mother chosen abortion, the world would have never tasted Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich. I believe that clarifies things.

[ Parent ]
Definitely same for the father... (none / 2) (#147)
by Gooba42 on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 05:15:50 AM EST

Any man who refuses to be a father to his child should be sterilized. Regardless of whether the mother is having an abortion or not, his choice not to be a parent should be made permanent.

Or so the theory goes anyway...

[ Parent ]

Rape? Accidents? (none / 0) (#255)
by Cheetah on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:32:41 PM EST

So any woman who is raped is sterilized?

You advocate permanent, drastic punishment for people who make one mistake? To my mind, involuntary sterilization is, morally and ethically, proximate to murder.

What if their selected birth control fails? What if they find out that something went wrong and the baby is going to be born with a horrible genetic or other deformity that will make the baby unlikely to survive and to be in pain while it does? What if something is going wrong that could kill the mother and the baby both? There are endless reasons why a woman might want an abortion that have nothing to do with being a backwards idiot that should be removed from the gene pool.

I think my mother's advice on suicide is somewhat permanent here: it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Lots of people are idiots when they are young. Vast numbers of them grow out of being an idiot.

[ Parent ]

*Sigh* (2.20 / 5) (#228)
by dasunt on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:43:52 AM EST

Regardless of your political or moral viewpoint on abortion being right or wrong, there is still the plain fact that if it's illegal, it's still going to happen. In fact, there's a very good case to say that when it's illegal, a woman is much more likely to be injured or killed as the result of a botched backyard procedure. A bit like pot or speeding, very illegal, but it happens a lot.

Lets us logic, shall we?

  • Abortion_Deaths = Number of Abortion Deaths.
  • Risk = Risk of Death per Abortion
  • Amount = Amount of Abortions Done
  • [Legal] = Legal Figure
  • [Illegal] = Illegal Figure

Abortion_Deaths[Legal] = Risk[Legal] * Amount[Legal]

Abortion_Deaths[Illegal] = Risk[Illegal] * Amount[Illegal]

Now, I think we can all agree, if abortion is legal, the amount of abortions done goes up.

At the same time, when abortion is legal, the risk goes down.

The question is, does the risk decrease enough that the increased numbers of abortions lead to less deaths overall? Or not?

Given this fact, even if we say abortion is wrong, it is even more wrong to put peoples lives in danger.

As a pro-lifer myself, I think its safe to say that most pro-lifers believe that abortion is wrong because the fetus is a person who deserves the right to life.

If you believe in that assumption, then legal abortions puts a life at a very high risk of being terminated.



[ Parent ]
Re: *sigh* (2.50 / 2) (#270)
by lucifer666 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 01:03:48 AM EST

The question is, does the risk decrease enough that the increased numbers of abortions lead to less deaths overall? Or not?
Well, I find it interesting that you didn't draw that particular point to a conclusion. It may be that there is a conflict saying "abortion should be illegal because less abortions will happen" and "abortion should be illegal, but if it is, more women will die from illegal procedures."

In my opinion, it is morally wrong for a society to make the procedure illegal, given that more women die. In my opinion, abortion *saves* lives.

Legal abortions certainly mean less women die from stupidity and mistakes. Given abortions will happen even if illegal, we all know this to be true, by making abortion illegal you are condemming some of these women to death. That is wrong.

If you believe in that assumption, then legal abortions puts a life at a very high risk of being terminated.
No. You have to realise that these women will have abortions, regardless of the law. This has been demonstrated in Britan in the past, and I'm sure in America as well at some stage.

If you honestly believe in a right to life, how do you justify a woman dying due to a botched illegal abortion, where as in a legal, mediacally supervised environment, she would at least still be alive, even if the foetus was not.

What about her right to life?

[ Parent ]

Even worse? (none / 0) (#242)
by gavri on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:21:28 PM EST

Many, many women died as a result of undergoing these operations. Possibly even worse, many more women were left baren after irreperable damage was caused.


Er....What?


--
Blog Of A Socially Well Adjusted Human Being

[ Parent ]
Different Feelings (none / 0) (#269)
by lucifer666 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:17:17 AM EST

Everybody has a different perspective on life.

While I personally would choose life over being able to have kids, I can imagine people who wouldn't.

For this reason, I say possibly even worse. Some would rather be dead. Thats called the range of human emotion, my friend, and you may have never met a person who lives in a negative rather than positive world, but belive me, I have.

[ Parent ]

beats a rusty coathanger in an alley (2.70 / 17) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 03:46:27 AM EST

which is where abortions will be performed (and as they are performed in countries with their heads up their asses) if those who do not see women as in control of their own bodies continue in their stubborn childish immoral ways

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

wondered why (3.00 / 5) (#43)
by GenerationY on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:19:06 AM EST

in pictures his clothes look all creased.

[ Parent ]
what if the fetus is female? (2.40 / 10) (#151)
by Battle Troll on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:25:28 AM EST

Shouldn't it be in control of its own body?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Female Foetus Should Control Mother's Body? (none / 0) (#234)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:05:12 AM EST

When unborn fetuses can ask to live or die they should be allowed to control their own bodies and perhaps their mothers' with them. Until then, why allow a fetus' supposed right to life to prevent its mother from controlling her body? What if life isn't in accordance with the interests or desires of the fetus?

[ Parent ]
I don't get it (none / 1) (#237)
by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:26:37 AM EST

When unborn fetuses can ask to live or die they should be allowed to control their own bodies and perhaps their mothers' with them.

Neonates can't talk either, but we accord them rights.

What if life isn't in accordance with the interests or desires of the fetus?

I think the real issue is the 'interests and desires' of the mother. I mean, in India and China, medical abortion rates of female, but otherwise healthy, fetuses are reaching 10%. I think it's kind of silly to presume that aborted fetuses, the overwhelming majority of which are healthy, do not generally desire to live.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Mother Can Decide, Neonates Don't Stop Her (none / 0) (#241)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:07:19 PM EST

Neonates can't talk either, but we accord them rights.

Children don't require quite the same use of their mother's bodies (to the extent that they could even swap mothers). What I meant to suggest was that when fetuses use their mothers' bodies and we can't determine their desire to live the rights of the mother should not be discounted "in favour" (when we don't know what they are) of the rights of the fetus.

I think it's kind of silly to presume that aborted fetuses, the overwhelming majority of which are healthy, do not generally desire to live.

I don't believe that any fetus desires to live ir die, but I don't see how relevant any uncommunicated desire of the fetus is if it is contrary to the intentions of the mother whose body is colonised.

[ Parent ]

wow! (none / 0) (#243)
by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:52:55 PM EST

What I meant to suggest was that when fetuses use their mothers' bodies...I don't see how relevant any uncommunicated desire of the fetus is if it is contrary to the intentions of the mother whose body is colonised.

Would you please state for the record, in so many words, that the fetus is a hostile parasite?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

The Fetus Is A Parasite (none / 1) (#244)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:42:37 PM EST

Would you please state for the record, in so many words, that the fetus is a hostile parasite?

I'm not sure that the fetus is capable of hostility, what with having an immature brain, but otherwise this is pretty much what I believe. I take a position similar to that of Judith Jarvis Thompson's A Defense of Abortion (here is some of it). I don't believe that the fetus is a person from conception, but I do agree that mere personhood isn't enough for such a great right to life as to trump a woman's bodily freedom.

So here it is in (almost) as many words:
The fetus is a parasite.

Any thoughts on the rest of my post?

[ Parent ]

how utterly revolting (none / 1) (#258)
by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:02:13 PM EST

The thought-experiment you quoted fails because the victim in it has been subjected to arbitrary violence and has not knowingly incurred a risk. (I understand that you believe that the decision to engage in intercourse need not include consent to the possibility of impregnation, but I disagree, by the analogy that, while no one consents to being hit by a car crossing the street, everyone knows that it's a possibility that can not be completely avoided, except by refraining entirely from crossing the street.) Anyway, I don't even need that parenthesis to make my argument.

Let me begin with a little ad hominem rant; this isn't strictly part of my argument. I personally consider it pretty damned shameful and disgusting to refer to a fetus as a 'parasite.' A mother ought to love her child, not be revolted by it. A healthy family is one in which the parents choose out of love to bring another human life into being. A fetus no more does violence to its mother than does a child asking to be fed or a pet asking for affection.

Any person can clearly see that mother animals love their young. Any healthy person can understand from a bitch's love for her pups or a cat's love for her kittens the ordinate love that every creature ought to have for its children. I can't imagine a sane person seeing kittens nursing and thinking, "those kittens are disgusting parasites perpetrating violence on their mother; if only cats could have abortions so as to be free from the indignity of having reproduction coupled to their sex drives."

OK, now to the argument.

What I meant to suggest was that when fetuses use their mothers' bodies and we can't determine their desire to live the rights of the mother should not be discounted "in favour" (when we don't know what they are) of the rights of the fetus.

This is a sophistry. When people are incapable, we presume that they wish to continue living and work to keep them alive even if they are failed suicides. In fact, if someone is known to be suicidal, it is often the case that the state intervenes, using violence if necessary. You are not far from justifying infanticide, (as some utilitarians do, though for different reasons,) on the grounds that neonates cannot communicate whether they prefer to live or die. If you concede that neonates are human, it seems silly to me to argue that they are mere tissue until birth. And if they can be human in utero, on what grounds can you justify risking a human life?

Let me give you ananalogy of your own. Let's say that, in order for you to have cosmetic surgery, a particular adult human being had to be killed in order that his tissue might be harvested. Would your 'right to control your body' trump his 'right to life?' I'd say this is a lot clearer and less contrived than this contemptible J. J. Thompson's article.

One final point. I don't feel that I have to address the question of abortion in cape of rape or incest one way or the other in order to argue that abortion on demand is a cold-blooded gory atrocity. There are a million and a half medical abortions every year in the USA, they can't all be rapes. Right now, any sufficiently determined woman is entitled to a medical abortion, a situation that only someone considering abortion a good thing in itself could endorse.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

all i know from this thread (none / 0) (#275)
by circletimessquare on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:17:10 AM EST

is that battle troll's mother should have aborted him (or her, or it)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
fuck off, loser /nt (none / 0) (#280)
by Battle Troll on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:39:13 AM EST


--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
i would like to fuck off (none / 0) (#284)
by circletimessquare on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:03:52 AM EST

but if i get her pregnant by mistake, do i have to ruin her life and mine for the sake of an unwanted child?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I hope you're (totally) joking (none / 0) (#285)
by rustv on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:30:26 AM EST

Without taking sides in this argument (listen, arguing about abortion is nearly immoral in itself), I would like to point out that the part about ruining lives is inaccurate, since there are other options.  For example, adoption.  Or, you can sell it into slavery in Russia or something, and make a couple of bucks off the ordeal.

In reality, there just aren't that many things out there that leave you conscious and ruin your life.  I mean, look at Stephen Hawking...

I just don't see the point to fallacious arguments.

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer
[ Parent ]

nice (none / 0) (#286)
by circletimessquare on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:34:38 AM EST

slavery is a far better option

(wtf?)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

(wtf?) I'll tell you wtf! (none / 0) (#287)
by rustv on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:49:38 AM EST

Nothing except death, brain damage, or total and permanent paralysis will ruin my life because I have a brain that is capable of coming up with alternative options.  This "adaptability" is one of the characteristics of my species.

If I hold out a ten dollar bill, and ask you for change, and then slowly and deliberately switch my ten dollar bill with a one dollar bill, are you still going to give me the ten dollars change?

The answer is no, but only because you're a jerk who wouldn't make change in the first place.

wanker

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer
[ Parent ]

what kind of subject switching troll are you? (nt) (1.50 / 2) (#288)
by circletimessquare on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:52:51 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
what kind of rhetorical question answer is that? (none / 1) (#289)
by rustv on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:58:43 AM EST

-nt-

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer
[ Parent ]
ha, you're a witty troll ;-) (nt) (1.50 / 2) (#290)
by circletimessquare on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:08:05 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Arguing The Toss (none / 1) (#303)
by freestylefiend on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 05:21:43 PM EST

arguing about abortion is nearly immoral in itself

Is it immoral to argue about arguing about abortion? If so, I think that I may be evil.

[ Parent ]

idiot (none / 1) (#292)
by Battle Troll on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:32:30 PM EST

if i get her pregnant by mistake, do i have to ruin her life and mine for the sake of an unwanted child?

Some people decide that they don't want their children when the children are toddlers. But that doesn't mean that murdering toddlers is defensible.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0) (#311)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 09:39:05 AM EST

i'm glad you know the difference, so do i ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I know the difference (none / 0) (#312)
by Battle Troll on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 10:17:08 AM EST

But, unlike you, I don't agree that it's sufficient to warrant the free killing of one while bestowing full human rights on the other.

On an unrelated topic, do you believe that we should be able to kill neonates? What about third-trimester fetuses that would be viable ex utero?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

i believe (none / 1) (#313)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 10:59:03 AM EST

that the mother decides

as she always has

and always will

and gas bags like you and me

will not control woman's bodies

even though some men believe a world where men control women's bodies is a better one

i know that it is not

women control their own bodies, and gas bags will not release dictums about how they should or should not behave

as it always was

as it always will be


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ah yes (none / 1) (#314)
by Battle Troll on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 11:16:04 AM EST

Let's call this the "e e whitman" rebuttal: an incantation masquerading as an argument, with an appeal to inevitability.

Historically, women who got abortions don't appear to have been thinking about 'controlling their bodies' so much as controlling the size of their families. These two concepts differ vastly. The modern concept of elective abortion as a lifestyle choice - rather than as a response to the force majeure of nature and social environment - owes nothing to the historical acts of abortion and infanticide as family planning of last resort.

I have every sympathy for a woman whose circumstances are so desperate, whether socially or by reason of poverty, that she's driven to infanticide, whether pre- or post-natal. But before the advent of modern medicine, we were more honest. We admitted that murder was murder and talked about extenuating circumstances. For a woman to kill her baby as a matter of convenience, not desperation, has always been known to be a crime.

I don't give a damn about 'controlling women's bodies.' What I do care about is the bloody severed hands and dismembered torsos of what are clearly immature human beings. How one's right to 'control one's own body' can overrule that of the child who must die to make that possible is entirely beyond me.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

its' so convenient (none / 0) (#327)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 03:14:39 AM EST

for you to judge the mother as a disco queen on her cell phone with her girlfriends planning her next sexual conquest as soon as she gets rid of that nasty fetus

when the truth is more often that it is the father on said cell phone planning said next sexual conquest, and the mother, given various promises of support and comfort and love, is two states away, abandoned, in the lurch

say what you want about what you think

the real world effects of your beliefs is to allow good for nothing men to thrive, and victimized women to suffer

your beliefs amount to nothing but a rationalization for sexism and misogyny, and do not bespeak of morality, but merely your undeveloped sexual experience, your phantom ideas of women as whore or madonna, but nothing in between

know the real world effects of your idealism before you apply it to real world human nature

develop some real world experience with real women, and familiarize yourself with the bad behavior of your own sex

and stop basing your malformed opinions on fantasy and phantasm and unrealized fears of the opposite sex

then maybe you will develop true morality, instead of idealistic thinking based on poor life experience

all those who oppose abortion are merely psychosexually undeveloped children

if they would know of the opposite sex more truly, if they would fully admit to the crimes of their own sex, they would not oppose abortion (same goes for those sheltered girls in women's bodies who oppose abortion as well, who probably have not got beyond the 13 year old girl fantasies of prince charming come to rescue her either)

children with idealism versus those with real world experience, a real understanding of the opposite sex, a real morality

that's the two sides of the abortion debate

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#329)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 11:28:51 AM EST

the real world effects of your beliefs is to allow good for nothing men to thrive, and victimized women to suffer

The real world effect of opposing the invasion of Iraq was to support the continued reign of Saddam Hussein. Therefore we should invade Iraq. And, hell, why stop at Iraq?

your beliefs amount to nothing but a rationalization for sexism and misogyny, and do not bespeak of morality, but merely your undeveloped sexual experience, your phantom ideas of women as whore or madonna, but nothing in between

Fuck off, asshole. You don't know anything about me. I'm a married man.

when the truth is more often that it is the father on said cell phone planning said next sexual conquest, and the mother, given various promises of support and comfort and love, is two states away, abandoned, in the lurch

This inanity is no argument for legalizing abortion. It doesn't address the ethical or legal issues. It doesn't even address the difference between aborting a three-week embryo, a six-month viable fetus, murdering a newborn baby, or killing your kids like Susan Smith. (After all, if abandonment justifies abortion, why shouldn't it justify killing a newborn, which is much more burdensome medically, financially, and timewise to the mother?)

all those who oppose abortion are merely psychosexually undeveloped children

And you know this how, the magic sparkly elves told you?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

you're married (none / 0) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 02:44:42 PM EST

who gives a flaming pop tart?

marriage between two religious fundamentalist twits does not a worldly wise couple make

before the 3rd trimester, a fetus is not a human life

in the third trimester, a fetus is not a human life, but modern medical technology allows it to live, so try to save it, if you want

after birth, nobody can touch that baby without paying a price, it is a human being

so where's your fucking slipperey slope asshole?

religious fundamentalists and their bullshit rationalizations: "if we allow homosexuals to marry, what next, men amrrying dogs?"

wtf?!

there are people out there WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS... this pedophilia argument shows up time and time again about homosexual marriage.. the frightening, nonexistent, slippery slope

same with your nonexistent slippery slope... like those who fear pedophilia because of homosexual marriage, you think that giving a woman a little bit of fucking control over her OWN FUCKING BODY will let lose the ounds of immoral hell

my position is extremely moral and wise

yours is childish, idealist, inexperienced, and wishful thinking

grow up, get a real morality that takes real human nature into account (hint: compassion included)

you seem to have more compassion for a ball of fetal drek than a living breathing human female

stupid fucking fudnamentalist asshole

it is people like you that create suffering in this world: by imposing your inflexible idealistic views and insist human nature in all of it's goodness and ugliness adhere to the impossible

stupid fucking intolerant prick

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you're such an idiot (none / 1) (#335)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 03:08:58 PM EST

marriage between two religious fundamentalist twits does not a worldly wise couple make

I converted to Christianity about two years ago, around the time that I finished earning my first grad degree. Before that I put myself through college in part by labouring on grain farms during the summer. I've paid my own costs since I was 17, apart from rent, and I moved out for good when I was 19, since which time I've held at least one job while continuing to study full-time. And I'm hardly a fundamentalist - I'm about as far from that as you can get while remaining within the same religion. You don't know bupkes about me, sport, and your inability to think other than in clichés is just sad. It's on the same level as Ann Coulter calling all liberals commies.

after birth, nobody can touch that baby without paying a price, it is a human being...so where's your fucking slipperey slope asshole?

My twin sisters were born around day 220 - just over day 210, which is your iron line - and they're perfectly OK. Yet by your logic, if my mom had decided two weeks before that to abort, no one ought to have said 'boo' to her. You seem awfully confident as to precisely when they became human beings

I don't really use slippery slope arguments. I think their main viablility lies in knocking down people like you who want to place arbitrary time boundaries around the definition of personhood, but that's not the basis of my opposition to abortion on demand. Rather, I think that even a young fetus is sufficiently similar to a human being and sufficiently close to realizing its potential to become a human being as to warrant legal protection against lethal violence.

you think that giving a woman a little bit of fucking control over her OWN FUCKING BODY will let lose the ounds of immoral hell

Put the whole thing in caps, it'll be more convincing that way.

It seems strange to me to argue that I'm extremely interested in controlling what women do with THEIR OWN BODIES. The only area in which what women do with THEIR OWN BODIES matters at all to me is abortion, and my opinions don't address the issue in terms of privacy but of preservation of human life, which is generally held to trump privacy rights. (That's why the police break down your door if they think you're in the middle of beating your family.)

you seem to have more compassion for a ball of fetal drek than a living breathing human female

A five-month fetus is hardly a ball of dreck. It screams when you chop in into pieces. It's funny: were it a man chopping up his dog, you'd be the first paper soldier to kick him in the shins while running through the park. But because this issue is a liberal sacred cow, you can't fall over yourself fast enough to defend the party line.

I refer you to this classic article on the subject of claiming that your opponent's arguments are constructed to justify opinions that he holds simply by virtue of what he is. Not that you'll read it, because you're an ignorant twit. But at least the option is open if you want to learn to be more than a walking fatuity. For instance:

religious fundamentalists and their bullshit rationalizations: "if we allow homosexuals to marry, what next, men amrrying dogs?"

Come on, man, beat the everliving shit out of that straw man!
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

i was illustrating (none / 0) (#339)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 04:15:36 PM EST

the idiocy of your slippery slope argument, which you were adhering too in your previous argument... it's not a straw man, it's an example of why slippery slope arguments don't hold water

of all the rhetorical crimes i have committed, is forgetting what you were talking about 1 post ago on your list?

here's the low down as i see it:

women are going to get pregnant with unwanted babies

do you deny this? or do you live in a fantasy world where human beings only have sex when they want children... it's statistical inevitability, do you agree?

are we on the same page so far?

ok, onward we go: someone, something, is going to suffer... the mother, or the child, right?

the abortion debate falls into two camps about how that question is answered

howabout i admit that something is being harmed (it's hardly someone) if you admit someone is being harmed when they are forced to give birth to a child they don't want

agreed?

then we get to talk about why it is better to harm the mother, instead of a ball of fetal miasma, or why it is better to harm the fetal drek, instead of the mother

someone is going to be harmed, abortion situations are going to happen, right? you agree with me on these two points? we're at the point where we are talking about the inevitability of these situations in life, right?

now: why is it that some people hold a woman's life in such low regard that a ball of cum is more important to them than a young woman realizing her full potential? why is this nothing, not even a nobody, so important to them over the life-altering point of no return of making a woman a mother who does not want to be one- the psychological damage, the life potential damage, the logistical drag, all of it... why is a ball of gunk more fucking important to fundamentalist assholes such as yourself (say you aren't, but you act like one with your idealism)?

a fundamentalist is someone who believes in fundamentals... who rather than accept some awful truths about life, would rather torture people in those awful situations by making them, forcing them to adhere to idealized behavior that does solve any problem except one: the psychic dissonance of those fundamentalists who cannot accept, who cannot see that childish adherence to idealistic notions of human behavior DOES NOT WORK

get over your pain that human life is messy and ugly, that tough choices are made in life, and stop making those awful choices that much more harder for unfortunate woman in unfortunate situations

instead of heaping all of the blame on her, why don't you go after the dad? yet another reason why fundamentalist notions of human behavior serve no one but the fundamentalists

you are an inexperienced child

your beliefs about abortion are not moral

because life is more complicated than the solutions to the abortion situation (it's INEVITABLE, RIGHT??? DO YOU DENY THIS???) that you propose

grow up, child

get a real morality


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

more of the "ee whitman rebuttal" (none / 0) (#341)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 05:24:15 PM EST

I'd love to see you in action in real life, when you can't rely on rhetoric to do the work for you.

[i was illustrating] the idiocy of your slippery slope argument, which you were adhering too [sic] in your previous argument

1 post up, as you put it, this is the only thing I wrote that smacks of slippery slope argumentation:

(After all, if abandonment justifies abortion, why shouldn't it justify killing a newborn, which is much more burdensome medically, financially, and timewise to the mother?)
You'll notice this is a refutation of your justification of abortion in cases of abandonment rather than the basis of my case against abortion. I didn't say that slippery slope arguments were useless in debate, I only said that my opposition to abortion was not based on them. So far, you have a C-: B+ for rhetoric, D- for missing the main thrust of the passage.

someone is going to be harmed, abortion situations are going to happen, right? you agree with me on these two points? we're at the point where we are talking about the inevitability of these situations in life, right?

Look, people are going to take drugs, right? No matter what we do, right? Why should we add to the burdens on a heroin addict's life by threatening him with the possibility of being beaten to death in jail?

Moreover, I agree that the mother and the baby's apparent interests come into conflict, so this argument only succeeds against my position when you're willing to beg the question of the fetus's status by categorically denying it all rights whatsoever. And since you allow for the possibility of abortion in the fifth month, your language (fetal miasma, ball of goo) is simply wrong. I'm presuming you've seen pictures of fetuses aborted in the fifth month. They don't look like balls of goo to me.

why is it that some people hold a woman's life in such low regard that a ball of cum is more important to them than a young woman realizing her full potential?

That's an interesting point. It relies on your imagining a woman's potential in terms that implicitly exclude family life from any significant consideration; and it presumes that abortion itself has fewer and milder consequences, which is contentious and thus cannot be assumed. I can't see how it is that having a child can be said to ruin a young woman's life, especially in a first-world nation. (I've stated elsewhere that I have every sympathy for people whose straights are so dire that they'd commit infanticide if they couldn't get an abortion, but there are no such people in America.)

If you have an absolute right to fulfill your potential, then you have (for example) a right to murder people whose lives are inconvenient to yours. Such a right is not defensible. In non-abortion situations, we presume that the right to fulfill your potential [which sounds like jargon for 'being successful' to me] ends when, at minimum, doing so would conflict with others' legal rights to safety, to be protected from fraud, and so forth. Apart from your claiming that all fetuses prior to the 180th day are mere balls of cum, you've offered no reason to believe that the mother's rights should supercede those of her baby or potential baby.

instead of heaping all of the blame on her, why don't you go after the dad?

Indeed, many states have tried to implement such laws. I fully support any such legislative effort. That said, if we had any way of preventing child abuse in the home, we'd cut the abuse rate (especially of spouses and children) by enormous amounts, but we prosecute abusers no matter what their upbringings. Similarly, while we should go after the father, we might only have a chance to intervene in the case of the mother actually seeking to terminate her pregnancy.

get over your pain that human life is messy and ugly, that tough choices are made in life, and stop making those awful choices that much more harder for unfortunate woman in unfortunate situations

You don't know anything about me, my past, or my circumstances, except what I choose to tell you. I haven't lived a sheltered life. Please check your assumptions about me at the door.

your beliefs about abortion are not moral

In your analysis, then, only beliefs rooted in cold hard facts! can be moral; my faggy maunderings about nothing can only be masturbatory and vapid self-justification. But the trick is that you assume whatever grab bag of prejudices you happened to wind up with are the facts.

My wife comes from a country where the vast majority of women have had multiple quack abortions, because the Communist government outlawed birth control. There is also an enormous unwanted street-child population. Some of my older female relatives have had a dozen abortions.

In such a situation as used to exist there, abortions were indeed inevitable. The people there didn't have the resources to bring up families with a dozen children. In a peasant society, perhaps a woman can bear a dozen children - maybe she's even better off doing so - but in an poor but industrialized one, it's not feasible.

If the situation in the USA was anything like this, I would be much more sympathetic to the pro-choice movement [I don't agree with it even as it was founded, but I understand its founders much more than I do its contemporary leadership - life was much worse then.] But abortions in America are elective in a way that they never were in that other country. The experience of the black community demonstrates that, while raising children without a father in impoverished circumstances isn't exactly the ideal situation, nevertheless, it's possible even in America. The choice isn't between abortion and impossible circumstances and painting it as such is dishonest.

The choice, instead, is between abortion and a greater degree of success and comfort. In my opinion, the consequences of abortion, primarily the death of the child, cannot justify the benefits, primarily freeing young women from the responsibilities of motherhood so that they can seek more education and a better job. In fact, trying to portray the mother's financial and social success as her 'potential' is dehumanizing, as it reduces her to a cog in the apparatus of society.

This isn't fundamentalism even by your preposterous definition, so please, for the last time, fuck off.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#342)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 06:37:30 PM EST

you want me to fuck off?

i'm not ever going away from your life pal

i'm called the middle way, common sense... i will be there around every corner of your life, because i am born again a new in every person who ever lives who has logic and reason and understands the world better than you and rejects your solipsistic one-sided malformed view of human behavior

you adhere to this ridiculous notion that a ball of cum is more valuable than the peace and prosperity of a young woman

that is fundamentalist: to elevate life, even in it's most quasi-existential state, to that of 100% human rights and liberties, is fundamentalist... on and off, no grey area for you, no gradations, just ALIVE or DEAD, no middle ground for you fundamentalist prick

do your white blood cells not kill bacteria? evil murderer!

that's the same logic you employ, exactly

until the police state exists that you want to create in order to enforce your idealism, women are going to seek and desire to get abortions, whether you like it or not: FACT- do you disagree with me on this point? so you would rather condemn those women than allow for them? fundamentalist: my way, or the highway... no compassion, no love, no respect for life: A REAL BREATHING WOMAN

not some fucking ball of cum you stupid asshole

do you understand the simple fucking contrast?

the only difference between my ideology and your ideology is i am willing to give them what they need in order to get the nightmare over (do you believe they enjoy the experience, that it is easy for them?), while you are perfectly happy with them being dead in an alley with a rusty coathanger and a pool of blood from their vagina by their pale lifeless corpse

how's that for shock imagery from the pro-choice camp? lol

stupid fundamentalist prick

the whole fucking world bends to your idealistic notions, or the whole world be damned, rather than you simnply take simple human nature into account in your ivroy tower fucking childish malformed ideology you think passes as morality

you are immoral

you are unreasonable

so you fuck off, stupid fundamentalist asshole

you fuck off, because the future belongs to me: reason, common sense, morality

not fundamentalist, childish idealism

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you fail to shock me (none / 0) (#343)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 08:03:36 PM EST

the only difference between my ideology and your ideology is i am willing to give them what they need in order to get the nightmare over ... , while you are perfectly happy with them being dead in an alley with a rusty coathanger and a pool of blood from their vagina by their pale lifeless corpse

Really, every single woman who would today seek an abortion would die in a back-alley butchery? Get a grip, I know several people personally who had multiple back-alley abortions. I must have missed the reports of thousands of women dying this way every year in Ireland.

Look, drug addiction is horrible and painful too. But I don't see you rushing out to ease the addict's burden to save him from death by AIDS via assrape in jail. And no matter what we do, people are going to get drunk and fuckfight in bars, but that doesn't mean that from pity, we should fail to prosecute someone who kills someone else in a bar fight.

Obviously a midwife's or unlicensed doctor's abortion is going to be dangerous, but a medical abortion is not only guaranteed to kill the fetus, but it helps make acceptable and even normal something that horrified previous generations. You seem to think that I've never considered the lengths women will go to to end a pregnancy, and indeed, I sympathise with women who are driven to such extreme measures. But that doesn't mean that I condone abortion, any more than you would condone the infanticide of neonates, on the grounds that the situation is just too extreme. I mean, I'm sure that the mother was distraught and in a bad way in this situation but that doesn't justify her actions.

you want me to fuck off? i'm not ever going away from your life pal

Well, all I wanted you to do was to stop surmising incorrect stuff about my personal life. I don't care if you want to keep this thread going for years. It can only have a beneficial effect on you.

you adhere to this ridiculous notion that a ball of cum is more valuable than the peace and prosperity of a young woman

There we go again with the ball of cum. You must really want to sidestep the five-month pregnancy quite badly.

Anyway, that key word prosperity trips you up. I can't choose between a woman's life and her child's and I can't blame her for seeking an abortion if her life is in danger. But I can certainly choose between her prosperity and her child's life. Very few women are literally going to die if they have a child. In fact, there are many willing adoptive parents who will pay for prenatal care and medical expenses should a woman offer to give her child to them.

To you, as an abortion is categorically ok, it's more important that a girl go straight to college than that she be forced to wait in order to finish while bringing up a toddler. I'm not willing to so callously toss the baby's life aside.

the whole fucking world bends to your idealistic notions, or the whole world be damned, rather than you simnply take simple human nature into account in your ivroy tower fucking childish malformed ideology you think passes as morality

I can't even make out how this is supposed to be a criticism. My beliefs are based on reasoning and experience, the same things yours are based on I presume, except that you appeal to 'human nature' to justify yours. Lots of people have ideas about what 'human nature' is, which is why appealing to your idea of it is called the naturalistic fallacy. An anarchist like infinitera has one idea, a libertarian like trhurler has another, and debates invoking these ideas are not productive because there is no way to reach a conclusion.

What the whole thing seems to boil down to is that you think that it's obvious that preserving a woman's freedom of action is warranted on the grounds that a) women will die in illegal abortions and b) the fetus, as a mere ball of cum, has no rights until month 6, at which point it magically becomes a person (because you say third trimester abortion should be illegal.) (I'm still waiting on your explanation of boundary cases that also takes anaesthetized people, the insane and senile, and the profoundly retarded into consideration, or that explains why we have no duties to the fetus on one day and full human duties on the next; I'm not using the slippery slope as the basis for my arguments, but it's an obvious criticism of yours.) You believe that my opinions are all theoretical despite copious evidence to the contrary.

Actually, my position is that while the humanity of a dividing embryo is not obvious, the humanity of a moderately-developed fetus compels anyone, regardless of religious beliefs (includng scientism) to accept it as having some legal status. I feel that the obstacles that a baby presents to a woman's life cannot outweight the fetus's right not to be exterminated.

While I agree that some women will die in illegal abortions should abortion be made illegal, that doesn't convince me that it should be legal any more than the existence of a black market convinces me that we should legalize the heroin trade, or than our inability to eradicate gun violence convinces me that we should turn a blind eye to it.

Oh, and I support gay marriage. So fuck off one more time.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

good god man (none / 0) (#344)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 09:12:44 PM EST

Really, every single woman who would today seek an abortion would die in a back-alley butchery? Get a grip, I know several people personally who had multiple back-alley abortions. I must have missed the reports of thousands of women dying this way every year in Ireland.

really? you know several people who had back alley abortions? what is your point... you condone this?

is this acceptable to you?

you know women are going to seek abortion, no matter what laws are passed, you have first-hand knowledge of this fact... and yet you continue to do what... deny the inevitable?

women are going to attempt to have abortions no matter what- apparently, we both agree on this

so, since we are agreement on this point, we come down to the real difference between you and me: i am willing to show compassion for the women, and you, apparently, are not

stunning

your lack of compassion is duly noted

all of the rest of your diatribe is same old "as it should be"

as it never will be


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

more (none / 1) (#346)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 01:58:39 PM EST

you know several people who had back alley abortions?

Yes. There are countries where it was common until the fall of communism.

you condone this?

They didn't die, so it disproves your propagandistic allegation that unlicensed abortions are usually fatal.

so, since we are agreement on this point, we come down to the real difference between you and me: i am willing to show compassion for the women, and you, apparently, are not

It's very convenient 'compassion' if it doesn't affect you in any way. It's simple: if you believed that the fetus has rights, you would be politically opposed to abortion. As you don't believe that it has any rights whatsoever until magical Day 180, you are politically in favour of abortion. I would be too if I didn't think fetuses have rights.

Your repeatedly avoiding addressing the issue of fetal rights by resorting to kakophemisms ('ball of cum' for a pre-Day 180 fetus) shows that you really don't have any arguments. You don't need arguments to have an opinion, but you do need them in order to have a persuasive case.

all of the rest of your diatribe is same old "as it should be"

Funny, a liberal ought to believe in historical progress. There were times when women, foreigners, and non-whites were considered not to enjoy human rights. It was no more obvious to people then than it is to you today that these 'outsiders' were human or had any rights at all. People much like you argued that slavery was always going to be around, that women ought never to be equal to men, and so forth.

Your misguided preference for a pregnant woman's material success at the expense of her fetus's life isn't founded in compassion, but in the belief that fetuses have no rights. If you believed that fetuses had any rights at all, no amount of compassion for the woman could justify the extermination of the fetus. Similarly, if you don't think that animals have rights, there's no problems with vivisecting them either - their screams are, as Descartes said, no more meaningful than the noise produced by a malfunctioning clockwork. But I think that one day society will regret abortion on demand, much as it now regrets slavery or totalitarianism.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

idealism (none / 1) (#349)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 02:06:02 AM EST

there is 2 kinds of idealism in life: unrealized idealism, and the idealism of the never-will-be

additionally, there is compassion that is proof positive, and compassion that is proof negative

pro-life positions are the idealism of the never-will-be and it's compassion is proof negative

let me explain

everybody hates war, but some begrudgingly accept it as a necessary but hateful part of human existence, while others adhere to the belief that war is never necessary, the true blue idealistic peaceniks who think that hugging a despot and singing campfire songs and giving him flowers will burst his evil heart and make him full of love

unrealized idealism is as you say: such as slavery. many argued for slavery in a lot of the ways you say i do, which is a good point. however, the allegory of slavery does not hold to abortion. slavery is, and was repugnant, but machinery replaced the need for a lot of repetitive human tasks, so slavery's repugnance rendered it unnecessary once and for given a viable option, and it could be abolished. the cotton gin probably did more to get rid of slavery in the american south than a million bombs ever did. (although considering the plight of mexican day laborers, you could say it still persists in a milder form, economic slavery, but that is another topic and the allegory doesn't hold that true really)

in the future, they may be able to grow beef in vats... real beef, with the same taste, mouthfeel, cellular makeup... at which point, the repugnance of killing domestic animals rises to the level where indeed, killing animals for food becomes unnecessary, the animal rightists win, but we're not there yet, so the repugnance of killing animals for foods continues today (so peta should do more biotech research methinks and get those vats going, lol)

in the future, some women may elect to have their children grown in artificial embryos, outside their bodies, to save their bodies the wear and tear, rendering humanity akin to egg-laying species. however, there will always be women who will want to go natural, just nostalgia is good enough, for indeed, humans are mammals: we do not lay eggs. for awhile, the mother's life and the baby's life are entwined on a level in which your teasing them apart makes no sense whatsoever, because they are united by god/ darwin/ whatever.

in such a case, you cannot ever talk about the rights of the fetus without considering the rights of the mother, and so you cannot, in intellectual honesty, discount the fact that at some point, in some instances, the rights of the mother outweight the rights of the fetus to live. if and when you admit that, then the question simply becomes a matter of at what point, and since every woman's case is different, ther is no idealistic, fundamentalist line in the sand that exists that you can adhere to as a edict for good behavior: it is different for every woman

my solution is to trust the judgment of the woman. this is an instinctual opinion base don one of trust. your opinion has no trust in women. it redners women as little more than reproductive machinery: their wants and needs are less important than her uterus in your eyes.

life is not a place of infinite resources. a woman is not an omniscient being. you cannot expect her to adhere to your unbending, idealistic edicts on abortion, and completely discount her feelings or wants and desires. it is not a matter of being unfair, it is a matter of design of homo sapiens as mammals: women grow our children in their bodies, attached on a very basic level which shatters your idealistic views, your gambit of removign her free will, completely.

if humans laid eggs, you would be 100% correct. since we do not, your beliefs are incorrect, idealistic, wrong, immoral.

i will make some assumptions and say i think you are someone who accepts war under certain conditions, that war is evil, ugly, hateful, but unfortunately, a necessary part of human existence: as long as people have different beliefs and are passionate enough about their beliefs to go to mortal danger for them, there will be war, or at least violent, deadly strife and conflict on some level, forever.

that will never change.

there will always be pedophiles in life. out of pure statistical inevitability, there will always be born or created, despite our best attempts at vigilance, pedophiles: those who disregard the innocence of children in order to satisfy a sexual urge. so we will always be at war with pedophiles. but this fact doesn't mean we accept pedophiles. it doesn't mean that just because there is nothing we can do about their continued creation that we just throw up our arms and walk away, we will always be at war on pedophilia, and we alway should be, and we always will be, our moral outrage never wavering one second.

abortion is not like slavery, it is like war or pedophilia: it will always be there, as long as women have children. necessary but unfortunate like war, and continuously recreated and lamentable like pedophilia.

do you see?

now, about compassion: for women in the situation of abortion, do you deny them? does that solve the problem of abortion? no, we have demonstrated it doesn't go away. we have deomnstrated why it is inevitable, we have demonstrated why it must be accepted: a woman must be allowed to go to a doctor to perform an abortion, or she will do it herself, and put her life in risk. this is the moral, conscious, compassionate thing to do: give her a safe space in order to have an abortion. not because we like killing babies, but because we have compassion for human life: the mother's.

proof positive compassion: compassion that then leads to fighting misogyny, fighting sexism, elevating the rights of women, elevating the earning equity of women to men, elevating women's access to contraception and family planning... all of these compassionate fights put owmen in less and less situation sin which aboriton must be considered. that's the real fight against abortion righ thtere. if you had real comapssion and real understanding, that is where your fight to save unborn fetuses would lead oyu to, instead of passing impossible idealistic unbending one-size-fits-all edicts on proper behavior which are diametrically opposed to the concept of human free will.

this is proof positive compassion in the fight against the situations which lead to abortion: helping women, not chastising them. less stick, more carrot. get it?

proof negative compassion is that classic bullshit: "compassionate conservatism"

conservatism is holding things back, by very definition of the word "to conserve". there is no compassion in the word conservatism, there is no bigger oxymoron.

here is an aesop's fable for you that may help you see the moral light in the fight against abortion, and the best way for you to proceed:

The North Wind and the Sun

The North Wind and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes.

The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do.

The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path.

Moral: Persuasion is better than Force.

do you hate abortion? do you want to fight it? then stop pounding on the rights and free will of women, and start shining some of your goodwill on their plights in life which would lead them to that option in the first place

then you will truly be compassionate, then you will truly be moral, then you will truly be tolerant

;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

more (none / 0) (#352)
by Battle Troll on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 08:56:43 PM EST

do you hate abortion? do you want to fight it? then stop pounding on the rights and free will of women, and start shining some of your goodwill on their plights in life which would lead them to that option in the first place

I hate poverty and would like to see it ended. In the meantime, I continue to consider it morally mandated that I give to charity. Similarly, while I'd obviously like to see a society in which women never desired to abort their children, in the meantime I continue to work against evil as I see it.

everybody hates war, but some begrudgingly accept it as a necessary but hateful part of human existence

There are some problems with this analogy. First of all, today there is abortion on demand, which is less 'grudgingly accepted' then viewed as morally neutral by many people. So it's hardly the case that 'some begrudgingly accept abortion as ... necessary;' rather, it's the case that some people want to argue that it's no evil at all. This has brought the USA to such a pass that there are over a million legal abortions performed every year. If the number was, say, 50,000, I wouldn't be much more concerned about abortion than I am about traffic fatalities. But 1 million abortions a year isn't grudging acceptance; it's a crisis fed by a culture of permissibility and sustained by the medical establishment.

Abortions and war might be inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we should condone either (or make either more convenient, etc.) While I'm not thrilled about the morning-after pill or about abortion within the first two months (pregnancy tests are cheap,) I would support some legal access to them on humanitarian grounds. While my religion argues against it, outside the religious community, we have to make utilitarian decisions. That said, in the USA, abortion has long since ceased to be an option of last resort. Now, it's merely the second line of contraception, and many women who whould not choose abortion were there substantial risks to themselves do seek and get them without consequences.

Obviously, a medium-term fetus is without rights in your view; he hasn't passed your threshold of humanity. But it must be clear by this point that there's no way that we can possibly scientifically evaluate the humanity of such a fetus. You argue that we should err on the side of maternal rights for humanitarian reasons; but 1 million abortions a year convinces me that we have erred too far against the interests of the child.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

the rights of the fetus (none / 0) (#355)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 09:09:21 PM EST

what of the rights of the mother?

can you not see that if the fetus has more rights, the mother has less? if women laid eggs, you would be able to consider the two separately, but with human biology, giving rights to one deflates the rights of the other, correct?

so why do you see the evil of deflating the rights of the fetus, while at the same time, see no evil at all in deflating the rights of the mother? in your eyes, women's legal rights in accord to aboriton renders them little more than reporductive machinery, not human beings with thougths, feelings, emotions, wants, desires

do you see no evil in deflating the woman's rights?

so abortion IS like war because it is hateful, unfortunate, but UNAVOIDABLE: where the rights of some humans are pitted against the rights of others

abortion must be made available to women, and abortion must be left to the full decision making capacity of each and every individual woman... that is justice, and that minimizes "evil"

you have a one-sided view of abortion, and you are woefully blind and inconsiderate of the rights of the mother

your view supports sexism, bigomy, misgyny... i know you aren't a sexist/ bigot/ misogynist, but i think unfortunately you are complicitly blind as to how your one-sided simplisitic views play directly into the hands of those who wish to remove the rights of women

and without addressing this fact, you fail to have a moral stand on abortion

you have only a one-sided one


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

one more point (none / 0) (#330)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 11:59:32 AM EST

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by 'recreational sex.' Women don't seem to plan serial sexual conquests the way that men do (the colorful cell-phone user in your example.) But on the other hand, many girls get pregnant by accident in college and then have an abortion. (For example, M. Lewinsky.) Such an abortion is elective in the sense that Lewisnky and her family would not have been reduced to desperate straights by her keeping the pregnancy; getting an abortion in order to be able to immediately return to school or avoid a minor social scandal is still getting it electively rather than out of pure necessity (my Chinese peasant example.)
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
and what is wrong with any of that? (none / 0) (#333)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 02:38:45 PM EST

A

FETUS

IS

NOT

A

HUMAN

BEING

IT

IS

NOT

MURDER

get your fucking head out of your fundamentalist ass

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

the louder you say it, the truer it is (none / 0) (#336)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 03:10:46 PM EST

If you were a lawyer, I'd hire you for sure. Every time the judge overruled your objections, you'd overrule his stank ass right back at 'im!
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
how do drill a point into someone's skull (none / 0) (#337)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 04:01:23 PM EST

who refuses to admit a simple truth

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
a 'point' isn't a fact (none / 1) (#338)
by Battle Troll on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 04:07:08 PM EST

I understand your 'point,' I just don't agree with it. People who disagree with you are more convincingly refuted by rebuttals than screaming.

The 'pro-life' movement is full of people who are even better at screaming than you are. Watch out, they might convert you by the force of their lungsarguments.

HTH
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I YELL A LOT (none / 0) (#340)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 04:16:39 PM EST

BIG FUCKING DEAL

this thread is dead, go to the other one (you forked it by replying to me twice... stick to one reply please)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#347)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 02:37:15 PM EST

stick to one reply please

Two points = two threads.

I also notice that you haven't actually been able to provide an argument about the nonhumanity of the fetus. Better work on that.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

In Defence Of My Revolting Opinion (none / 1) (#302)
by freestylefiend on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:57 PM EST

Sorry for the delay. I wrote a reply yesterday and then closed the wrong browser window.

The thought-experiment you quoted fails because the victim in it has been subjected to arbitrary violence and has not knowingly incurred a risk.

That is an interesting point. We must accept unavoidable risks whether we are well informed are not. Bearing children is not an unavoidable risk, even for pregnant women.

When people are incapable, we presume that they wish to continue living and work to keep them alive even if they are failed suicides.

I question such behaviour, especially when the incapable party depends for its survival on taking a woman's bodily freedom.

You are not far from justifying infanticide
...
on the grounds that neonates cannot communicate whether they prefer to live or die.

That is not my whole argument. If I wanted to justify infanticide, then I would need to make another argument. The salient difference is that, unlike fetuses, children are not dependent on the bodily resources of a single woman. Children can be adopted.

If it is possible that fetus either does not want to live or should not want to live then requiring a woman to surrender her bodily freedom for it seems inappropriate.

If you concede that neonates are human, it seems silly to me to argue that they are mere tissue until birth. And if they can be human in utero, on what grounds can you justify risking a human life?

I do concede that neonates are people (this is a stonger condition than mere humanity: my nail clippings are human) and that late term fetuses are too, but I think that early term fetuses are not people. Unless we have a moral duty to use our entire reproductive capacities, then a non-person fetus' potential to become a person is not sufficient reason for its abortion being morally impermissible. However, my argument is for the abortion of even those fetuses that are people. As I do not know at what point in pregnancy a fetus achieves personhood, the permissibility of abortion of fetuses that are not people is likely to be inactionable.

Let me give you ananalogy of your own. Let's say that, in order for you to have cosmetic surgery, a particular adult human being had to be killed in order that his tissue might be harvested. Would your 'right to control your body' trump his 'right to life?'

No. Receiving tissue donations is not required for bodily freedom and this man can exercise his "right to life" without interfering with the woman's bodily freedom.

One final point. I don't feel that I have to address the question of abortion in cape of rape or incest one way or the other in order to argue that abortion on demand is a cold-blooded gory atrocity.

Of course. Those cases are entirely different.

Right now, any sufficiently determined woman is entitled to a medical abortion, a situation that only someone considering abortion a good thing in itself could endorse.

There is no need for everything that is immoral to be illegal. It is quite possible to believe that abortion is morally impermissible in some cases, but that it should never be illegal.

[ Parent ]

where to start (none / 0) (#310)
by Battle Troll on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 09:23:58 AM EST

We must accept unavoidable risks whether we are well informed are not. Bearing children is not an unavoidable risk, even for pregnant women.

However, getting pregnant is an unavoidable risk for any woman who engages in intercourse, which is the point I was getting at: I wrote ...the decision to engage in intercourse need not include consent to the possibility of impregnation...

If it is possible that fetus either does not want to live or should not want to live then requiring a woman to surrender her bodily freedom for it seems inappropriate.

I find this an indefensible sophistry. The vast majority of people do not commit suicide. I see no reason to presume that unborn children do not want to live; in fact, I would say that until the child is at least ten years old, he or she lacks any understanding of life and death that can be compared with an adult's. The incapacity to articulate one's desire to live shouldn't be taken as evidence that one has no preference, or else the radically mentally handicapped would be subject to extermination. I think it's obvious that children want to live by default, or else we'd see a lot more preteen suicide.

I hope that you are never taken to a hospital where the ethicists agree with you, that silence necessarily implies the possibility of consent to one's own extermination. Medical ethics requires that people be treated when incapacitated because, for one thing, to fail to save someone who desires to be saved is held to be a greater wrong than to save someone who does not desire to be saved. Then there's the statistical argument that most people desire to be saved rather than left to die.

Moreover, while the fetus's life may require an appropriation of a woman's bodily resources, I don't see this appropriation as justifying a murderous defense. The doctrine of proportionality doesn't allow us to use lethal force in self-defense unless we are subject to a threat, not merely an inconvenience; and, in America, few women's lives are threatened by pregnancy. For those whose lives were so threatened, the courts allowed abortion long before Roe vs. Wade, and I am not interested in disputing their access to abortion, only that the literal million women a year who seek elective abortions.

(this is a stonger condition than mere humanity: my nail clippings are human)

Mere casuistry. Your nail clippings are human tissue but not human beings, as you know I know well; making a semantic point of this is like accusing me of illiteracy, and I won't have it. Make your points in debate if you can.

Unless we have a moral duty to use our entire reproductive capacities, then a non-person fetus' potential to become a person is not sufficient reason for its abortion being morally impermissible.

By your logic, a fetus and a sperm cell have the same rights and potentials. They're both human beings in potential only and thus devoid of human rights. But, barring abortions, a fetus is quite likely to naturally develop into a baby on its own; barring impregnation, a sperm cell dies of old age in a few weeks. Regardless, to say 'non-person' fetus begs the question, of course, and it's a sophistry as well, because no one has argued that we have a moral duty to maximize our reproduction. Rather, the argument is that fetuses are in some ways clearly similar to human persons, and that these similarities, buttressed with their development (which is better said to be almost inevitable, not merely potential; as though a fetus in many cases grew into a dog or vanished into a point, rather than growing into a human person whenever not miscarried or aborted,) entitle them to the human rights accorded other helpless human beings.

However, my argument is for the abortion of even those fetuses that are people.

Doesn't it bother you that your policy may well sacrifice myriad human persons? If we don't have a moral duty to defend human persons from death by violence, what moral duties can we possibly retain?

Receiving tissue donations is not required for bodily freedom...

I think that you need to define the term 'bodily freedom' to which you have repeatedly intuitively appealed. Is it purely a negative right? If so, why does it trump the negative right not to be destroyed by violence that you refuse to extend even to person fetuses, as you state in the quote above?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Re: where to start (none / 1) (#315)
by freestylefiend on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:52 AM EST

I hope that you are never taken to a hospital where the ethicists agree with you, that silence necessarily implies the possibility of consent to one's own extermination.

I hope that I don't outlive my ability to commit suicide. If I were to go to prison, or were to find myself without the food or water that I needed, then the ability to commit suicide would be really useful. If I lost the ability, then my quality of life would probably be worsened by the loss of other functions.

Medical ethics requires that people be treated when incapacitated

Conventional medical ethics, which, I believe, permits abortion on demand, is a fine thing and I wouldn't hurry to change it. However, I do not consider it to be infallible.

because, for one thing, to fail to save someone who desires to be saved is held to be a greater wrong than to save someone who does not desire to be saved.

I disagree. I believe that there is no terrible pain in death and that the avoidance of pain is among the highest of goals.

Then there's the statistical argument that most people desire to be saved rather than left to die.

I'd imagine that that's true, but I would also be interested if you could demonstrate that truth.

Your nail clippings are human tissue but not human beings, as you know I know well; making a semantic point of this is like accusing me of illiteracy, and I won't have it. Make your points in debate if you can.

I meant no offence. My intention was to make my point clear.

barring abortions, a fetus is quite likely to naturally develop into a baby on its own; barring impregnation, a sperm cell dies of old age in a few weeks.

Yes. That's a good point.

Regardless, to say 'non-person' fetus begs the question, of course, and it's a sophistry as well, because no one has argued that we have a moral duty to maximize our reproduction.

Nobody has argued that, but I thought that it followed from a certain position on abortion.

Rather, the argument is that fetuses are in some ways clearly similar to human persons, and that these similarities, buttressed with their development (which is better said to be almost inevitable, not merely potential; as though a fetus in many cases grew into a dog or vanished into a point, rather than growing into a human person whenever not miscarried or aborted,) entitle them to the human rights accorded other helpless human beings.

I am only interested in the rights of people (perhaps I don't really want to exclude animal rights, but that would overcomplicate things here). I don't acknowledge rights for dead bodies or the youngest fetuses. My intuitive feeling is that if I can prevent from achiveving personhood a fetus, which is otherwise certain to become a person, or a sperm or egg, which might do, then the person who does not exist as a result has no right to demand that it be allowed to live.

Doesn't it bother you that your policy may well sacrifice myriad human persons?

Not really. I would, of course, suggest contraception, rather than abortion, to avoid unplanned children, but abortion of an unplanned fetus might save the potential person a lot of trouble later on in addition to protecting the woman from labour.

If we don't have a moral duty to defend human persons from death by violence, what moral duties can we possibly retain?

Other ones. I can't think of many restrictions on conceivable moral systems, apart from the requirement that we don't have conflicting duties.

[ Parent ]

more (none / 0) (#348)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 03:08:36 PM EST

I believe that there is no terrible pain in death and that the avoidance of pain is among the highest of goals.

In other words, you believe that our duty to avoid and prevent pain is often a more compelling obligation than our duty to preserve life. This is controversial because, among other things, many people would evidently rather have a life with pain than no life at all. As this is the case, you cannot argue that your views are descriptive morality. But if they're prescriptive, from where do you claim to have discovered the true hierarchy of duties?

I don't acknowledge rights for dead bodies or the youngest fetuses.

Few people claim the first, many claim the second, so I don't see why it's permissible to conflate them.

My intuitive feeling is that if I can prevent from achiveving personhood a fetus, which is otherwise certain to become a person, or a sperm or egg, which might do, then the person who does not exist as a result has no right to demand that it be allowed to live.

Normally, people don't have to be in a position to demand rights in order for society to recognize them. A radically retarded person and a comatose person have legal rights despite their incapacities. While sperms and eggs have no personal qualities or individuality beyond the genetic level, a fetus appears to me to be sufficiently close to a person to possess at least some rights; especially because, as it matures, the line between a fetus and a neonate, which definitely has rights (P. Singer notwithstanding,) becomes increasingly blurred.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

A Little More (none / 0) (#350)
by freestylefiend on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 04:27:18 AM EST

In other words, you believe that our duty to avoid and prevent pain is often a more compelling obligation than our duty to preserve life. This is controversial because, among other things, many people would evidently rather have a life with pain than no life at all. As this is the case, you cannot argue that your views are descriptive morality. But if they're prescriptive, from where do you claim to have discovered the true hierarchy of duties?

This is all true. I believe that the true hierarchy of duties is unknowable. My argument is speculation, but I consider all moral viewpoints to be speculation, even if they are not controversial.

Few people claim the first, many claim the second, so I don't see why it's permissible to conflate them.

I didn't mean to conflate them. I was trying to communicate that I only understand rights as belonging to people, not their bodies. According to me, bodies are only associated with rights during personhood. The lack of rights for dead bodies is quite irrelevant to mature fetuses, but not to simple fetuses, as they are also not people. I acknowledge that this is of little use, because it cannot be said at which point in time a fetus achieves personhood.

Normally, people don't have to be in a position to demand rights in order for society to recognize them.

I didn't mean that people (or, in this case, people to be) should be in a position of strength for their rights to be recognised. What I meant was that there is what I call a "right to demand" (a right being a right to demand that someone fulfills a duty) if a request would be reasonable to make. If I were approached by someone claiming to represent a fetus in the first hour of its mothers pregnancy (when I would feel reasonably confident that the fetus was not a person), I would feel justified in saying that if the fetus was aborted, then it would never have been a person and no rights would ever have been violated.

(Perhaps I should also say that I am interested here in what rights society, or anything else, ought to recognise, rather than what it actually does).

A radically retarded person and a comatose person have legal rights despite their incapacities. While sperms and eggs have no personal qualities or individuality beyond the genetic level, a fetus appears to me to be sufficiently close to a person to possess at least some rights; especially because, as it matures, the line between a fetus and a neonate, which definitely has rights (P. Singer notwithstanding,) becomes increasingly blurred.

The blurred line means that we should try to find behaviour that is acceptable on both sides of the line or that we should exercise caution. I suppose we disagree about precisely what this entails.

[ Parent ]

PS (none / 0) (#320)
by freestylefiend on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 03:45:43 PM EST

I think that you need to define the term 'bodily freedom' to which you have repeatedly intuitively appealed. Is it purely a negative right? If so, why does it trump the negative right not to be destroyed by violence that you refuse to extend even to person fetuses, as you state in the quote above?

You're right. I haven't thought this through properly. However, this argument still appeals to me more than any other than I have heard on the subject.

[ Parent ]

Wow.... (2.75 / 16) (#36)
by starX on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:30:06 AM EST

On the one hand, I'm fairly speechless that we now have an Abortion HOW-TO.  On the other, I have to question its significance.  Are you a doctor?  Have you actually performed this procedure?  If you are/have, than this is probably one of the most subversive HOW-TOs ever.  Undercutting the possibility that the so called "right to lifers" would ever get legislation that made such procedures illegal is the information that would, in the hands of a competent physician (who one would hope that however underground their facilities may be, would observe the standards of modern medical practice), allow said physician to perform such a procedure.  If you're not, than this is an interesting social protest that could have untoward consquences, and you ought to take pains to make sure that there is no chance that anyone reading it would ever think that you were a doctor with practical experiencein these matters.

If you are not a physician and have never before performed this procedure, than how can you personally confirm the accuracy of these instructions?  You lack sources, so you're pretty well asking us to take it on faith that you are an authority on this procedure.  If you are not, than I would certainly hope you would at least say so (your disclaimer about performing it in the pressence of someone who has the experience doing so aside).  If you have not synthesized this knowledge from practical experience, than where did you get it?  

Yes, bravo, you have touched a taboo, but consider that you are addressing a very serious issue here (and by that I mean performaing a surgical procedure in general), and you should be willing to say whether or not you are personally experienced in performing this procedure, and where you got your information from.  

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust

Good question. (2.92 / 13) (#37)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:51:17 AM EST

If you are not a physician and have never before performed this procedure, than how can you personally confirm the accuracy of these instructions?

No, I have not performed this procedure.

In that vein, I also have never destroyed a T-72 Main Battle Tank, but I am confident that with the proper weaponry, I could use the specific training I received in the Army to accomplish that very task.

As I stated earlier, this is a portion of the Special Forces Medic course curriculum and has been approved as the proper procedure by trained medical personnel.

Furthermore, my confidence in these instructions is enhanced with the knowlege of the strict standards to which these Medics are held.

To graduate from the course, the prospect is assigned a healthy goat, which is then shot by the cadre.
In order for the soldier to graduate from the course, the goat must not die.

Typically, the goat lives, as does my trust in the training these soldiers receive.

You don't have to believe me, but this is the surgical protocol.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
So was there a source? (2.80 / 5) (#52)
by misfit13b on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:27:09 AM EST

If so, why isn't this source identified in the body copy? If it is, please point it out to me, as I must have missed it.

Otherwise, it seems to me that it's more of a plagurized copy/paste job than it is an article.

[ Parent ]
Copyright issues (3.00 / 5) (#69)
by mutualaid on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 04:38:24 PM EST

There may be issues with copyright infringement preventing the disclosure of the source.

Although generally works by the US Government are automatically considered part of the public domain, it is possible that internal publications by the military are exempt from this. Note that I'm not a lawyer (not even close), and this is pure speculation.

I don't think the failure to attribute authorship in any way undermines the importance of this article.

[ Parent ]

Importance is subjective. (none / 3) (#72)
by misfit13b on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:03:34 PM EST

The poster says he's not a doctor, admits to never following the steps in his own HOWTO, seems to allude that the text is taken from some military document... I don't think my request is out of line here.

If there are special circumstances regarding the copyright of the source, let it be known. The evidence suggests that this is not an original work, and it should be stated as such in the article.

[ Parent ]
It is a derivative work. (3.00 / 7) (#86)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:47:48 PM EST

I edited the original source for readability by "de-jargonising" the terse military-styled text, concatenated the examination information with the surgical procedure instructions and I can assure you that the source information falls in the public domain, does not bear any military classifications and is correct on a technical level.


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the reply. (none / 3) (#106)
by misfit13b on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:30:19 PM EST

Have a +1 FP.

[ Parent ]
omfg that will teach me to read too quickly (3.00 / 6) (#76)
by livus on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 06:53:45 PM EST

I thought you were saying that in the army everyone has to D&C a goat!

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
WTF!!! (none / 2) (#114)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:06:17 AM EST

So, making the big assumption that you're not trolling (at the moment) and this is actually legit...

> the Special Forces Medic course curriculum

I *have* to ask:  WHAT THE FUCK???

Now, "special forces medic" carrys a stong implication that this is a guy who's not actually a doctor, but something like a corpsman or paramedic, who performs first-aid in the field or in combat.  A regular army doctor, I can easily understand being trained to perform abortions.  After all, humans are horny, and there are women in the army.

But what the HELL business does a "special forces medic" have performing an abortion?  Don't they have much more immediate and important things to do?

I can see it now....  army commandos blast into a hijacked airliner, shooting anything that looks like a terrorist in the head.  One of the female hostages says she has been raped at some point.  So, right there on the spot, the medic whips out the speculum and takes care of the problem.  Actually.... no.... I can't see it.  Shouldn't such things wait until the "special forces" (Okay yeah...  I was going to type "Delta Force" here, but I figure that the army's special forces they don't REALLY call themselves that.) are long gone and all the ex-hostages are safely in a hospital somewhere, where real, full-time, doctors can fix them up?

Or maybe while they're creeping around the desert with a laser, painting targets for the Air Force, an occasion to perforn an abortion will come up?  No wait.... I know.... while they're swimming in from the ocean to blow up a power plant, they'll happen across a preagnant dolphin that's having problems with it's featus.  They'll take time out from the "blowing shit up" thing to help out a fellow mammal...

Seriously.... WTF?

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

I've already addressed this point. (2.75 / 4) (#129)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 01:59:31 AM EST

These aren't your typical Army medics, Corpsmen or Combat Lifesavers.

The training they receive is so advanced, that they are authorised to act as Battalion Surgeons for the indigenous Battalions that are led by a SF A-Team.

They also provide all medical care to the forward-deployed elements of these Teams.

Look at the culmination of their qualification course; They are required to perform surgery, possibly aortal repair surgery, on goats with firearm wounds.
If their "patient" dies, they fail the course.

These guys take their business very seriously and the Army takes great care to ensure that they're extremely well-trained.

Lives hang in the balance. I'd trust them with my life and I think if you knew more about them, you would too.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Additionally: (2.75 / 4) (#144)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:56:41 AM EST

The Special Forces Medic career field is separate from the more combat-oriented jobs in that specific branch.

Though they aren't averse to fighting when needed, they are most wisely used in their medical role.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Hearts and minds. (none / 0) (#356)
by wraith0x29a on Wed Jul 28, 2004 at 10:45:24 AM EST

As I understand it a big part of special ops is winning the hearts and minds of locals so they will help with intelligence gathering and so on.

Special forces medics regularly provide medical care for people in, say, remote villages where medical care is otherwise non-existant.
"There are actually 11 kinds of people in the world: Those who don't understand binary, those who think they understand binary and those who know what little-endian means."
[ Parent ]

that's content of a Special Forces Medic course? (1.60 / 5) (#203)
by mami on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:15:15 PM EST

Well I agree with your statement above: "Most people aren't accustomed to material that is this graphic, but I believe that it's important that "sensitive" matters such as this are brought to the fore-front and discussed rationally."

Let's discuss this rationally and at the fore-front then.

If those instructions are taught to the Special Forces Medics, I am really amazed about their sense of effectivenes and their technical efficiency coefficient.

I mean talking rationally about those "sensitive" matters, let's be a bit sensitive here: if you want to kill the baby, just shoot the mother, works flawlessly and is much more efficient - and more appropriate for patriotic warrior medics.


[ Parent ]

I wish you had posted this 4 months ago (nt) (2.76 / 13) (#44)
by j1mmy on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:43:53 AM EST



mariahkillschickens is a doctor (3.00 / 4) (#108)
by Stick on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:03:13 PM EST

She should have done it herself.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
I suggest adding a disclaimer (1.68 / 29) (#45)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:35:36 AM EST

Following this procedure to kill a baby growing inside a woman may result in prison and eternal Damnation.

1st trimester (2.80 / 5) (#70)
by mutualaid on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 04:42:23 PM EST

Killing a baby may very well be undesirable, therefore this procedure is quite useful.

embryo != baby && fetus != baby

[ Parent ]

I suggest talking to a pregnant women (1.50 / 10) (#73)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:11:25 PM EST

ask her if she can feel her fetus kicking, and if she's done painting the embryo's room.

[ Parent ]
Pregnant women are unreliable sources (3.00 / 7) (#75)
by mutualaid on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:18:25 PM EST

Just because women who believe themselves to be "with child" go overboard with the cliched sentimentality does not mean that an embryo is any more of a baby than an amoeba. I will gladly point this out to any that are interested.

[ Parent ]
Compeltely wrong (1.57 / 7) (#164)
by TheWake on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:44:57 PM EST

A human life has a complete human genome at the point of conception. Any other life form from an ameoba to a chimpanzee will not. Human life no matter what you call its form (embryo, fetus, child, baby etc.) begins at conception. To purposely or intentionally end such a life is to kill another human being. This is exactly the intent of the surgical procedure described.

[ Parent ]
so does a dead cell (3.00 / 7) (#192)
by Agent Orange on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 05:07:36 PM EST

my dead hair cells (and any other cells) contain a full human genome too, but you wouldn't consider them living humans.

this is not to say that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, but you logic is flawed.

[ Parent ]

Kill Your Cells Fine, Don't Kill Someone Else's (none / 2) (#209)
by Brian Puccio on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:12:52 AM EST

Of course your skin cells aren't living humans, it's a dead portion of a living human.  Causing any harm (something called assault where I come from) to someone else's cells, whether one or many is illegal.  Causing such harm that all cells cease to function is called killing.  This is also illegal.  What makes killing a human different than killing a human?  Size?

By that logic, since I can legally kill very small ones but can't harm large ones, I should be legally allowed to rough up midgets, right?

To quote Doctor Suess, "A person's a person, no matter how small".

[ Parent ]

if that midget... (2.80 / 5) (#232)
by divinus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:15:24 AM EST

in unwantedly inside your body existing parasitically, then yes. yes, you can.

[ Parent ]
Kids are parasites too (none / 1) (#265)
by Brian Puccio on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:22:59 PM EST

You need to feed them, clothe them, send them to school.  A human is a parasite from the moment the sperm meets the egg until the age of 18, sometimes longer.  Get used to it.  If you didn't want the responsibility of dealing for another lviing thing, don't have sex.

[ Parent ]
erm... (none / 0) (#297)
by divinus on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 06:59:40 AM EST

I meant the actual biological definition of parasite, not the colloquial pseudo-social-metaphorical definition.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

And yes, the host has complete sovereignty over its body.

[ Parent ]

your dead cells are not your entire being. (none / 1) (#238)
by TheWake on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:30:01 AM EST

I was just attempting to point out that the ebryo is much more than a common single celled animal. The comment I replied to equated killing of an ameoba to the termination of an early pregnancy. I still maintain that there is a huge difference that needs some serious concideration.

The intent of the procedure is the termination of a human life before birth, not a haircut. The procedure ends the functioning of all the cells of the embryo, not just removing a few dead cells from a child or adult. My rebuttal to the earlier point still may not be perfect, but it is not as flawed as you think.

[ Parent ]

May also cause drowsiness (2.77 / 9) (#74)
by Tatarigami on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:17:35 PM EST

Operating heavy machinery not recommended.

[ Parent ]
You forgot (2.44 / 9) (#57)
by minerboy on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 12:51:43 PM EST

Sterilization procedure - difficult without an autoclave. Where to obtain the Drugs - all will have to be obtained black market in the US - you may get some anti-biotics in Mexico. Which anti-biotics are recommended ? The procedure will not be appropriuate for any stage of pregnancy - which stages is it appropriate for ?

On second thought - I will have to vote -1 , on the of chance that some distraught 8th grader will see it and try it. Wouldn't you feel terrible ?



Poor man's autoclave & antibiotics-a-go-go (3.00 / 11) (#71)
by mutualaid on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 05:01:27 PM EST

If you don't even have access to a common kitchen pressure-cooker (which works as well as an autoclave provided it reliably reaches 15psi AND you double normal autoclave sterilization times [30-45min works well]), you can achieve sterility by the following:
  1. get a large metal pot with a lid that seals reasonably well.
  2. use a metal grate or some heat-resistant object to elevate the objects to be sterilized 4-5 inches from the bottom of the pot
  3. Fill the pot with several inches of water, insert objects to be sterilized, cover with lid
  4. Heat to boiling, let boil for 30 minutes.
  5. Carefully remove from heat, let cool, DO NOT REMOVE LID.
  6. Wait 24 hours, repeat boiling procedure.
  7. Wait 24 hours, repeat boiling procedure a third time.
The objects inside are now as sterile as can be achieved without high pressure equipment.

Antibiotics:

Many antibiotic medications can be obtained without any sort of medical licence or Rx through the veterinary industry as feed supplements and the like. Not only are the basic penicillins readily available, but fairly exotic and powerful fluroquinolone drugs can also be found by the determined researcher. It is of course up to the individual to determine if a particular drug is safe for consumption and what dosage is appropriate.

This is of course only for education purposes. I AM NOT A DOCTOR. I do not guarantee the accuracy of any of the above information, or even it's plausabililty. Using the advice contained herein may be harmful to your health. Always consult a licensed medical practitioner.

[ Parent ]

Excellent points. (3.00 / 6) (#85)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:42:36 PM EST

I didn't want to diverge on too many tangents, but your tips are essential to this operation.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Did you mean "every stage"? (2.75 / 4) (#104)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:26:09 PM EST

You're right. 3rd trimester requires a slightly different procedure, in addition to the D&C.

I think including that is outside the scope of this article, but that's a good question.

I did include links to most of the pharms required for this procedure and I think that obtaining them would not be a major obstacle to those who require them.

Also, sterilisation methods will vary, IAW the materials that are available.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
ha (3.00 / 4) (#128)
by Matt Oneiros on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 01:56:41 AM EST

On second thought - I will have to vote -1 , on the of chance that some distraught 8th grader will see it and try it. Wouldn't you feel terrible ?

The 8th grader who can get or has hegar sounds... is already starting life out on the wrong foot.

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real
[ Parent ]

-1 (1.35 / 17) (#58)
by ljj on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 01:11:36 PM EST

With the contempt it deserves.

Why ti dave, why?

--
ljj

Why not? (3.00 / 8) (#87)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:50:13 PM EST

Did I present information you already possessed?

Before you cast a negative vote, remember that Bush and Ashcroft would love for you to vote against this story and would likely support the suppression of this information.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
no (none / 2) (#246)
by ljj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:36:11 PM EST

I did not previously know how to perform this procedure. I also don't know how you give a kid 100 scheckles to blow up a bus (with him in it). This is information I can live without.

My wife and I lost a babygirl in the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy last year. After experiencing this loss, I cannot comprehend how anyone can wilfully administer it to themselves - let alone how anyone can help them.

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

In the SF medical handbook eh (2.62 / 8) (#65)
by IlIlIIllIIlllIII on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 02:06:28 PM EST

in case you need to perform a battlefield abortion? I don't get it though.

When did you learn english? /nt (2.25 / 4) (#82)
by mcgrew on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:27:29 PM EST


-------
"If we really want to stop terrorism, we have to get Muslim men laid." -Bill Maher
[ Parent ]

A long time ago (2.75 / 4) (#109)
by IlIlIIllIIlllIII on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:14:10 PM EST

In a galaxy, far, far away. I think this inane, pedantic, and above all pointless kind of personal insult is really what makes K5 annoying to read at times. "WHEN DID U LERN HOW 2 RITE DURHURHURHUR". HOWTOs on abortion, however, are what make me come back.

BTW, nigga owns you, too bad he's gone.

BTW mk.2 I also like flame threads (sometimes they're funny) so I'm game if you are.

[ Parent ]

No, I think you ruined the persona (none / 0) (#264)
by mcgrew on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:17:47 PM EST

You should have stuck to the woodstock markings, at least for a while longer.

[ Parent ]
SF missions... (2.75 / 4) (#91)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:57:26 PM EST

Working with indigenous people is a typical way for them to build trust and rapport with future allies, and these medics are tasked to work for improving health conditions in often primitive conditions.

Good question and I hope that answers it well enough.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
SF missions? (2.75 / 4) (#99)
by Tatarigami on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:11:22 PM EST

Working with indigenous people is a typical way for them to build trust and rapport with future allies

And the wives and daughters of future allies? ;)

[ Parent ]

Yeah. (none / 2) (#101)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:17:20 PM EST

The Montagnards would be a good example.
SF really do rely upon the good-will of their comrades-in-arms.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
What do I do now? (2.71 / 21) (#78)
by the on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:02:31 PM EST

So I got to the stage where you start scraping with the curette. All was going fine but suddenly the patient has started serious hemorrhaging. The blood loss is pretty dramatic and we don't have any blood or plasma on hand as your article didn't mention that this might be important. Anyway, if you get a chance to reply in the next few minutes please tell me what to do next. If you can't reply that quickly maybe you could write an article on What To Do When You Suddenly Have A Corpse On Your Hands.

--
The Definite Article
Already addressed: (3.00 / 8) (#92)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:03:12 PM EST

Excessive bleeding may require packing the uterine cavity with long, continuous sterile roller gauze and observing for shock, until the patient is out of danger and hemostasis is achieved.

Naturally, if the patient's condition worsens, advanced medical attention should be sought.
I would advocate involving the patient in the decision-making process, as prosection for breaking anti-abortion laws may lead to extremely harsh punishment.


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Look for ti_dave's next article (2.92 / 13) (#98)
by Tatarigami on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:10:12 PM EST

...in the food section.

Why do abortion jokes make me giggle like a happy six-year old? Surely this isn't normal?

[ Parent ]

These damn Linux HOWTOs. (2.71 / 7) (#111)
by mcc on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:50:05 PM EST

They never cover troubleshooting...

[ Parent ]
ouchy (2.50 / 8) (#79)
by livus on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 07:06:51 PM EST

I actually know someone who used to participate in DIY abortions in the 1950s when it was illegal. The poor woman had to go to lots of them because no one but her knew what they were doing, so they'd phone her up at the knitting needle stage and ask her to come along to look through the gore and check that they "got it out".

No one should have to go through this. At the same time, as the boy scouts say, "be prepared".

 

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Dammit (2.15 / 13) (#96)
by yayaya on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:24:28 PM EST

Someone should have done this to kitten's mom back in the day.

Such a bad a idea.. (2.62 / 8) (#97)
by sudog on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 08:25:23 PM EST

.. on so many levels.

What, you think so much of yourself that even an untrained, unwashed idiot can follow your instructions successfully?

What an ego! :-)

I recommend that they wash beforehand. (3.00 / 9) (#100)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:47 PM EST

This should be performed in a sterile environment.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I've noticed... (2.40 / 5) (#184)
by sudog on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 02:59:46 PM EST

...that no one here has addressed the fact that your suggestions, especially if performed incorrectly, might be legally actionable. You aren't a doctor, you don't present any credentials, your audience isn't trained to deal with complications arising from performing this procedure, and there's no indication that your purpose is humour, spoof, or to make a political point.

Also, Kuro5hin (for posting this story) might be held responsible if someone is hurt as a result of an overzealous and/or under-careful amateur.

I suppose a point has been made now that it's almost been posted a few times and by virtue of the story's controversial nature, but I'm afraid you'll have to be a little more clear about what that point is to those who don't see it.

Looks like the voters have spoken anyway.


[ Parent ]

No indication? (3.00 / 7) (#186)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:06:46 PM EST

Dilation & Curettage is indicated for abnormal, or post-menarchal bleeding, spontaneous (incomplete) abortions, or therapeutic abortions under an oppressive regime.

Though it's mainly for reference purposes, the fact that I posted with an additional political intent is quite clear, I believe.

Frankly, I think any legal ramifications of this story are par for the course, since my target audience lives under regimes that would suppress this information.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
1/3rd is not 100%. (none / 2) (#193)
by sudog on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 06:51:56 PM EST

I don't think that stands up to scrutiny;

i. There are two other indications that you list. Thus, it's not entirely clear to the layman that the primary purpose is political. Read: your tone suggests you are offering this information to anyone with the will and vocabulary.

ii. It would only be of use in an oppressive regime that doesn't offer population control mechanisms to its populace, to people who can obtain the requisite tools, and those people are likely already trained medical professionals who are capable of doing this procedure without your help.

iii. Because your target audience might be construed to be partly those members of our own regimes here who feel they have no choice in the matter, you are opening yourself up to a higher degree of risk than if you had preceded your story with a disclaimer or two.

While I personally enjoy this kind of risk-taking (Irish babies, anyone?) and am of the *very strong* opinion that *all* non-private and scientific information should be free to anyone who seeks for it (even though generally it already is,) it'd be a shame if some idiot in a sue-happy state decided to foist some idiot legal bills on Rusty--in which case you'd be relegated back to Freenet with your surgery howto's anyway.


[ Parent ]

It's not the primary purpose. (3.00 / 4) (#196)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 07:43:33 PM EST

As I said, this is a reference work and I'm open to the notion that anyone who requires this information will be able to obtain it, preferably from this forum.
This includes those living in places where the laws change over time. I'm considering future scenarios when I submit this work.

I did include a disclaimer and warnings of the consequences of not following the instructions and I'm not going to speculate if a really, really stupid person fails to follow the primer.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Or someone... (none / 0) (#202)
by sudog on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:13:57 PM EST

...egotistical enough to think they can do it without harming the patient.

So what makes you think it's safer and better for a woman to be treated by someone with access to a sterile environment and sterile tools, and a single "supervised" practice session prior, rather than carrying a baby to term? (Especially when you don't describe what the word "supervised" means--supervised by whom? A doctor? A midwife? A close personal friend? An angry goat?)

What makes you think that if this procedure were to be used to address a health problem, that even in a hostile political climate there are more often superior alternatives for the patient?

You fail to adequately address possible complications, fail to describe the frequencies and likelihoods of possible complications, fail to describe signs that might indicate the patient is more or less susceptible to complications, fail to describe pre-surgery examination procedures or preparations (seaweed inserts, anyone?), fail to address contra-indications, fail to address possible complications of the various types of anaesthesia you suggest, fail to address possible allergies to any substances in the tools your procedure requires, fail to address follow-up medications which might be needed by the patient, fail to address the long-term effects the patient can expect, etc etc ad nauseum.

Your claim that going into too much detail would turn your article into the "Infinite Jest" is fine but unfortunately the detail you did provide is wholly inadequate for anyone to think they can safely perform this procedure without putting their patient at needless risk. An Infinite Jest is one extreme--yours is the other.

In other words, the risk to the woman in situations you deem worthy of this procedure is heightened dramatically, and most probably needlessly.

Do you think that an archive of this article is going to help some future hopeful perform an operation on someone in a hostile first-world political climate?

Anyway, I'm perfectly aware of what you're doing; it just seems very few others are, which should be proof enough that you have misjudged the fallout from and useful purpose of this article.


[ Parent ]

... in the above note: (none / 1) (#205)
by sudog on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:20:18 PM EST

... I didn't have much time. I'm on my way out to the local pub. Replace "failed to" with "failed to adequately"

Describing contraindications with a single word or phrase is probably not a good idea.

I suppose what this boils down to: who's your audience, exactly? What is their education level? What is their comprehension level? Dexterity?

I don't think your intended audience (that is, the people who might find this article useful) is being properly addressed. :)


[ Parent ]

Question: (none / 2) (#212)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:43:28 AM EST

Why didn't you raise these reasonably valid points while this was in the editing phase?

Had you raised them in a timely manner, I could have addressed them in the piece.

Before you raise the point, cancelling the story didn't seem prudent in the voting phase, because the score moved upward at a slow pace.

I fought for every positive vote and I wasn't going to back down.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#214)
by sudog on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:59:02 AM EST

... I don't actually watch Kuro5hin regularly enough to have caught it in editing. How long did you have it in the edit queue?

I suppose that kind of invalidates my criticisms: after all, what point is there in critiquing a piece that can no longer be changed?

Ah, I should've voted it up. Next time if I see the story's from you I'll remember your pseudonym and vote appropriately. Your comments here have convinced me that, even if you are simply a hyper-advanced troll, you do it in such a way that it brings a good "holy crap never saw that before" grin to my face.

So, thanks for the experience anyway!


[ Parent ]

About 5 hours. (none / 0) (#215)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:11:32 AM EST

I also made several edits in the voting phase.
I appreciate your advice.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Read some Swift. For that matter, read anything (none / 2) (#218)
by scruffyMark on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:20:39 AM EST

there's no indication that your purpose is humour, spoof, or to make a political point.

It's called deadpan. It's a fairly common rhetorical device.

That said, there is a long history of humourless folks not getting it - cf the initial reaction to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public.

[ Parent ]

Yes, yes. Already know that.. (none / 0) (#307)
by sudog on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:33 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/3/22/20565/6275?pid=186#193

I already commented on Irish babies.

My point wasn't that *I* misconstrued his message, his intent, nor his purpose. It was that other people would; and have, judging by the comments in this article.


[ Parent ]

I suppose that's kind of the point (none / 2) (#321)
by scruffyMark on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 05:58:39 PM EST

Swift wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention about Irish babies if a very high proportion of A Modest Proposal hadn't taken it seriously...

[ Parent ]
You've got it mixed up. (none / 0) (#326)
by sudog on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 02:33:31 AM EST

You're mixing up which side of the issue is being taken seriously here and so your comparison is wrong.

In one case the author was being taken seriously but not the article. In this one the article itself might conceivably be taken seriously and people might be hurt as a result.

Big difference.

I'll tell you what I find annoying (not necessary a commentary on you, by the way:) too many "smart" people accept--even want to see--"less intelligent" people hurt themselves as a result of "smart" people's actions on the silly assumption they somehow "deserve" it for not being smart enough to protect themselves.

What utter, inconsiderate, cruel crap. Why don't they like kicking friendly dogs, punching old women in the kidneys, or beating up people with down's syndrome? It's the same fucking thing!

All they're doing is using Darwinism as an excuse to act like jerks.


[ Parent ]

crybaby talkshows. (2.80 / 5) (#233)
by livus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:17:10 AM EST

Only in America can you be "held responsible" for that level of idiocy in another person. Threats to sue because of the internet seem soooooo peculiar, to anyone not living in the United Sue.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Isn't K5 hosted in the U.S.? :-) (none / 0) (#306)
by sudog on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:12:11 PM EST

Otherwise I completely agree. It's ass-backwards for the most part. On the other hand clear cases of libel including false information or embarrassing personal information posted to a public forum probably should be actionable..


[ Parent ]
Libel? (none / 0) (#322)
by ti dave on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 08:59:46 PM EST

Please explain to me where I've libelled someone in this submisson.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Not what I was saying. :-) (none / 1) (#325)
by sudog on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 01:58:34 AM EST

This fork of this thread has gone off into tangent-land and has nothing to do with your submission.

We're (I'm?) merely commenting on the state of the U.S. legal system with regards to statements made on the Internet. I was merely saying that clearly libelous and factually incorrect statements should still be actionable, which seems to stand in contrast to one of the parent posters who claims that lawsuits based on comments/etc on the internet seem foolish to non-Americans.


[ Parent ]

it's like furniture removal... (none / 2) (#259)
by Fuzzwah on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:03:06 PM EST

If the untrained, unwashed person has managed to get something inside they should be able to get it back out.

--
The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
[ Parent ]

I learned everything I needed to know from (2.37 / 8) (#103)
by Real World Stuff on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:22:40 PM EST

The Cider House Rules.

Nothing a swift kick to the abdomen won't fix.

~RWS
2 B 1 ask 1

We do this in order to help women. (3.00 / 7) (#105)
by ti dave on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 09:27:32 PM EST

I would not recommend your course of action.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
We? For whom do you speak? (nt) (none / 0) (#221)
by mami on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:27:02 AM EST



[ Parent ]
As my sig used to say (2.80 / 5) (#112)
by godix on Tue Mar 23, 2004 at 11:54:53 PM EST

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix
- Tex Bigballs

I miss Bigballs sometimes, he had that special touch for being offensively funny.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

This can't be factual! (2.77 / 9) (#138)
by bigchris on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:04:36 AM EST

I didn't once read a "stat" in the entire piece.

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
I have an inherent distrust of statistics. (3.00 / 7) (#142)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:44:01 AM EST

So I'll stick to an expository format.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Dr. Ti Dave to the ER... stat! (none / 2) (#293)
by berticus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:43:26 PM EST

Two different 'stat's here, no? I believe the parent poster meant the 'without delay' variety. A joke... ha!

[ Parent ]
Why did you write this up? (2.10 / 10) (#148)
by mami on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 07:49:01 AM EST

Well, it's a good idea to ban men from dealing with the inner lining of our valued female uterus in any shape or form anyway. No woman with some brains needs your "Passion of the Uterus"-kind of article.

I'd wager that... (2.75 / 4) (#167)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:48:44 PM EST

Most OB/GYN doctors that you've had, have been men.
Am I right?
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
off topic - response in form of an answer (none / 0) (#198)
by mami on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 09:47:29 PM EST

not relevant to the point that an instruction about the medical details of an abortion is not what women with brains need.

I'd wager that you can't give a reasonable answer to why you have written up this article. Am I right?

 

[ Parent ]

arggh - I meant response in form of a question (n (none / 0) (#199)
by mami on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 09:48:25 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Look around this story. (none / 1) (#211)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:42 AM EST

Look in the editorial comments.

I've responded to the same question about a dozen times.

Shall I repeat myself?

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Please do, repeat yourself (none / 1) (#220)
by mami on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:25:53 AM EST

I just need your arguments over and over, each time they might become a bit more true, right?

[ Parent ]
The First Rule of Persuasive Speech: (none / 1) (#240)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:50:07 AM EST

No matter what you do, some people simply will not change their minds.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
what planet are you two on? (none / 0) (#231)
by livus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:14:14 AM EST

I've seen many ob gyns and all of them have been xx chromosome.

Although the option has never yet presented itself, I would turn down an xy gynaeocologist, on the same principle as the fact that I wouldn't have a blind optometrist.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Do they not attend the same schools? (3.00 / 5) (#239)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:47:46 AM EST

Please explain how a female OB/GYN is qualitatively better than a male with the same experience and training.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
she has gone through the pain (none / 1) (#248)
by mami on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:21:09 PM EST

he never will

[ Parent ]
And if she's barren? "Child-free"? (2.66 / 3) (#249)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:09:58 PM EST

Which pain would that be? Do all women bear children?
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
STD tests, men have something similar, no? (none / 0) (#251)
by livus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:37:16 PM EST

that thing that looks like a bottlebrush. Effing scratchy on the inner cervix.  On men, they stick it right up your urethra.

I sometimes think it's the most compelling argument for monogamy that there is.

Actually the whole thing is usually pretty uncomfortable. I have to get them to use the specially small speculum. The gyno reminds me so much of the dentist that I often book them in the same week.


---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

I get the impression that... (2.80 / 5) (#256)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:37:39 PM EST

Mami seems to believe that male OB/GYNs are incapable of showing a little empathy and compassion for their patients.

Ironically, if I were to tell her that I believe women shouldn't be cops because they aren't as aggressive as men, she'd chastise me from one end of this board to the other.

I don't believe in double standards, and I'm calling her on this notion that men can't/shouldn't do the job.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
No, no, no ... (none / 1) (#266)
by mami on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:56:57 PM EST

I know very gentle men with very gentle hearts, who do fantastic work as surgeons, but I don't think they would ever write your "passion of the uterus" story on K5.

Of course men can do the job, some men, not all of them and I wouldn't go near a man, who would write the article you wrote. No double standards, just my feeling in the guts (or may be in the uterus, I am not quite sure) that something is wrong about you writing this article.

But we all know that I don't know what I am talking about. :-)

[ Parent ]

Please elucidate why you feel that way. (none / 1) (#268)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:55:04 PM EST

That is, after all, one of the reasons I wrote this.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
After you, Sir ... :-) (none / 0) (#278)
by mami on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 07:16:25 AM EST

You wrote the article and know what compelled you to write up an abortion How-To on K5 that has the precision of a swiss army-knife and looks so scientific that one even can smell of chloroform coming out of the PC speakers (luckily, because one needs to numb its senses reading your article).

I mean all the glory to you for saving my poor sisters in the hoods and ghetto alleys from the coathangers and giving them the right tools necessary at no costs, but ... do you think they watch out for an abortion How-To with their laptops on their knees in the dirty sheets of their run-down huts of the backyard alleys somewhere ... you know where?

You seem to hide behind science as Mel Gibson did behind religion. Why and what do you hide?

[ Parent ]

They may not, but... (none / 0) (#281)
by ti dave on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:48:16 AM EST

Perhaps someone in their social network does, and that makes this worth the effort to me.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
ok, you get an A for effort (nt) (none / 1) (#298)
by mami on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:56:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
omg you're right (none / 1) (#274)
by livus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:39:10 AM EST

I never thought of it before - and I have greatly increased admiration for Ti Dave at his having been actually able to write something that made me feel sick, as very few people in life can achieve that - but you are right! I liked the article, but it gives me a gut reaction cautioning me.

I wonder if men feel the same way about Loretta Bobbitt!


---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Loretta Bobbitt? (none / 0) (#277)
by mami on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:58:58 AM EST

Who is she and what did she do?

[ Parent ]
I mean Lorena (none / 1) (#279)
by livus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 07:56:17 AM EST

Lorena Bobbitt

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
ah, I see, well, it has nothing to do with it (none / 1) (#299)
by mami on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:09:34 AM EST

the actions of Lorena Bobbit have nothing in common with an abortion procedure described in such sharp detail that a normal woman might start to scream thinking about the pain it causes.

An abortion is always a painful procedure, emotionally and physcially and thought it can be viewed as morally questionable, it never is just immoral or just moral, it's most of the time both and it's up to the woman to decide, what it really is is in her specific case.

Abortion can save a life by killing another one. Abortion can be very human, it can be criminal, it can be reasonable, it can be irresponsible. The only person who knows what it is, is the woman. Leave her alone.

Lorena Bobbit actions are simply criminal and amoral. I doubt that ti dave would have written a HOW-TO for cutting off penises of bad men by worse women. But may be you ask him and he will do, if you want a horror trip ... :-)

[ Parent ]

I wasn't saying they were the same (none / 0) (#305)
by livus on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:55:38 PM EST

just that if a woman wrote up such an article as a HOW TO Lorena Bobbitt, maybe men would feel disgusted thinking about the pain. Perhaps a HOW TO on how to circumcise adult men would have been a better example.

I didn't want to draw any moral comparison. Anyway, they are very different situations.  

I agree with you about abortion.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

re: Circumcision (3.00 / 3) (#323)
by ti dave on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 09:03:05 PM EST

Write it up!

It's common, so I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there.
I was fortunate to select a topic with little publically available information.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
No way! (none / 1) (#324)
by livus on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 09:55:52 PM EST

this is strictly your domain. Besides, we love penises; why would we want to hurt them?!

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Are you conflating... (3.00 / 2) (#282)
by ti dave on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:50:37 AM EST

nausea with introspection?

I truly believe the unexamined life is not worth living and I'm glad that I was able to illuminate this subject matter for the readers.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
nice! but I don't think so (none / 1) (#295)
by livus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:57:17 PM EST

...and you know I completely agree with you! If nothing else it made me even more careful about contraception.

Nope, I think I was just having that same impulse that makes some men cross their legs when Bob Flanagan hammers a nail through his penis in Sick.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

She has a cunt. (none / 1) (#250)
by livus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:34:49 PM EST

Anyone would think you'd never seen the film Dead Ringers.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
That's not what he meant (3.00 / 3) (#257)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:43:44 PM EST

He meant how is she a better doctor.  Not a better lay.  Sheesh.  I hate having to explain trival things.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Big Sexxxxxxy Joe is correct. (3.00 / 3) (#262)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:10:20 PM EST

That's what I meant and no, I haven't seen that film.

I'll put it on my "short list".

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't buy a travel guide (none / 1) (#272)
by livus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:33:04 AM EST

written by someone who hasn't been to the country it describes.

Given that there is a huge history of male medical professionals doing weird and horrific stuff to female bodies (which, alas, I happen to have read their own accounts of in all their ignorant, hater glory), and given that horrible things have happened to the generation of women older than me, (and in parts of the US the current generation of women) because of this same tradition, I'm simply damned if I'd entrust stuff to someone who hasn't got any first hand experience of what it feels like.

I've also had a completely fucked up experience with a male GP which confirmed my worst suspicions. Been there, done that.

Furthermore, to me equality is about being realistic about the fact that yes there actually are some physical differences. If a man wants men to deal to his prostate, I'm not complaining (besides, it's hot). If the army decides on a mandatory level of upper body strength to safely operate something and mostly men make the grade, well that's just practical.

Also, I'm not saying that males should be banned from practicing  gynaeocology. I'm just saying, I never see any males in that field and if there are any I personally won't go to them.

Okay, so I may be a bigot. And I'm selfish. But I'm not going to put my physical comfort and health on the line simply to be P.C.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

First of all... (2.60 / 5) (#283)
by ti dave on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:00:03 AM EST

I'm sorry to hear of your mal-treatment at the hands of someone you trusted.

I'm not sure that the history you speak of is "huge", a description that may be true, simply due to the sheer number of those kinds of interaction.

I'm going to speculate that the rate of abuse is low.
Still unacceptable, but not the pandemic that you're asserting.
Sadly, I don't think anyone knows the correct number, because the element of shame tends to repress victims from coming forward and reporting the incidents.

In any case, you are not a statistic, and I would never chastise you for your personal health decisions.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
oops, I think I gave you the wrong impression (none / 1) (#294)
by livus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:49:13 PM EST

Thanks, but I wasn't abused, I just meant, weird dismissive behaviour which seemed to have its basis in a vehement refusal to acknowledge my biological differences and resulted in a misdiagnosis and four weeks of painful ulcers all over my body. Not to mention a bill for meds that were useless. The thing that gets me is that my problem was really common - it sometimes happens to women who change from one contraceptive pill to another, and can easily be cured simply by changing back. But the guy dismissed this as fanciful.

I didn't mean out and out abuse at all, actually, I meant medical practices based on misconceptions of the female body, which must have resulted from the gendered nature of the medical research workforce at that time.

Eg the use of cliteral excision and quarterization to cure "hysteria" in the C19th, the "honeymoon stitch" in the C20th, and the fact that in the C21st THIS isgroundbreaking is both an indication of the current state of affairs (due to lack of research we as yet have no nerve map of females, unlike males, which is one reason why there's such a high incidence of sensation loss after surgery on females in that region).

For a specific historical example there is a case study I read the other day where the male doctors examining explain the presence of up to 100 needles in one case or a broken bottle in another inside the wombs of women to be because they must have "naughtily" put them there in the pursuit of pleasure and are now denying it. The worrying thing was that these people were at the forefront of sexual trauma research.

erm. Okay, obviously this is a subject where I go off on tangents. I'll shut up now!

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Sometimes... (none / 0) (#296)
by ti dave on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:58:33 PM EST

Medicines don't always worked as planned.

That sounds like a peculiar syndrome. Did you consult an endocrinologist for it?
As I understand it, manipulating any kind of hormone level can be a tricky thing.
Good to hear it worked out for you.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I think he was trolling me (3.00 / 2) (#304)
by livus on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:48:35 PM EST

he told me to put this $25 ointment up my nose every day, claiming that my hormone problem was all in my head and that actually I had a special bacteria that lived up my nose.

But I didn't need endocrinology (thank christ), as soon as I got my regular doctors back they said it happens sometimes and cured me within the week by putting me back on my old system.

Anyway, it's all good. At least this way, so far I've managed to avoid needing a D&C.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Um (2.66 / 3) (#252)
by trhurler on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:10:38 PM EST

Your post is the funniest thing I have ever read. Congratulations. I mean, it could only be better if it contained the phrase "the purity of our precious bodily fluids." Perhaps you should be enlightened by the Passion of the Tubgirl.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
+1, information wants to be free [nt] (2.85 / 14) (#160)
by pb on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 11:45:42 AM EST


---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
Please withdraw this story (1.75 / 12) (#162)
by hatshepsut on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:34:58 PM EST

unless you have actually done this. Posting a How-To on something you haven't actually done is worse than useless.

If I want to learn about medical procedures, I will ask a doctor, read a book (or article) written by a doctor, or go to medical school.

In the future... (3.00 / 8) (#165)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:46:50 PM EST

You, or others like you, may not have those options.
I thank you for your input, but I've submitted this story as a service to others.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Sir, the next time you protest at Planned Murderho (1.66 / 15) (#170)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 01:00:18 PM EST

od, look at your fellow Right to Kill protestors. The 19 year old Communist dope fiend on your left, who wants to take what you worked hard for, since you have more, and spend more time getting high. The aging Volvo driving pacifist hippie on the left, who hates guns, thinks soldiers have mental defects, and whose first act when the Godless Commmie invade would be to lie down and spread her legs and finally get the good shagging her emasculated New Age man has been unable to provide. Are these the folks who will keep America great, so your children and grandchildren have a decent standard of living?

Then look across the street, at the fervent Irish priest, the staunch Republicans, and the God Fearing Father of 12 with his woman properly behind him, and ask who you'd rather have checking your back?

[ Parent ]

I'd rather have someone who isn't afraid of women. (none / 1) (#197)
by cburke on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 09:45:31 PM EST

There wasn't room to put "nt" in the subject line.

[ Parent ]
Screw your right to life! (none / 1) (#208)
by gr3m on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 11:53:26 PM EST

peggy sue got pregnant and was addicted to fifteen drugs she went down to the abortion clinic and was accosted by right wing thugs [chorus]: oh will the fetus be aborted by and by lord by and by there's a better home awaiting in the sky lord in the sky little mary was just eleven and she was raped by her own dad danny quayle said "have that baby" but another choice she had [chorus] annie's pregnancy would kill her doctor's warning gave her strife fundamentalists said "jesus take her" she said "i want my right to life." [chorus] kathy had two kids already and an abortion is what she chose christians showed her a bloody fetus she said "that's fine i'll have one of those." [chorus] tanya lived for revolution wanted to overthrow the state she had fifteen commie babies phylis schlafly ain't that great? or will the fetus be aborted......

Jello Biafra/Mojo Nixon Will the fetus be aborted

[ Parent ]

I don't know what kinks you have, Adam (none / 1) (#230)
by livus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:11:37 AM EST

but I for one do not want an Irish priest checking out my back.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Strawman! (none / 0) (#271)
by emmons on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:32:55 AM EST

He's a cool dude... you should meet him sometime. He get beaten up pretty badly though on a regular basis.. perhaps we should put him on federal aid of some sort?

---
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

[ Parent ]
Or go to medical school? (3.00 / 8) (#168)
by ti dave on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 12:51:33 PM EST

While you're there, you'll read a textbook that offers the same information that I've posted here, except that my version is easier to understand and it won't cost you a nickel.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Hilarious (none / 0) (#273)
by limekiller on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:33:10 AM EST

HAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA.

Hehehe.  You read k5 and ...hehehehe ...you think commentary not b ...hehehehhe [cough], excuse me for a second here, I have to catch my breath.

Whew.

Ok, ...[snort] ...you feel that comments not based on personal, first-hand experience is ... ..BAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I'm sorry.  Hearing that from a reader of a site like this is friggin' hilarious.  If you actually felt that way, you wouldn't even have an account.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Hellooooo, Sellison. Where are you? (1.63 / 11) (#185)
by Dphitz on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:02:27 PM EST

I would have expected some good trolling from him on this one, right up there with the Fundie Adam Rightmann.  

Oh well.  -1 on this because . . . who fucking cares?  Although well written and concise no one here will ever use this information to any practical extent.  Unless I get my mistress pregnant that is.  Then it's time to go shopping!


God, please save me . . . from your followers

I don't want a surgical HOW-TO... (2.55 / 9) (#187)
by CodeWright on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 03:08:39 PM EST

...unless it tells me how to install my Ono-Sendai 7 cyberdeck neural implant.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

Ono-Sendai 7? (none / 2) (#210)
by ZorbaTHut on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:31:19 AM EST

Are you nuts? Didn't you hear about the neural bandwidth benchmark scams? They've been doctoring the drivers - you can only expect 15tbt/sec if you're running one of their authorized tuned programs, and even then you're running the risk of cortical collisions.

Honestly, ever since the whole Case thing went public, they've just been running on PR. You might as well slap a "Type R" sticker on your forehead.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#245)
by CodeWright on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:52:06 PM EST

...even after selling my arms, legs, liver, kidneys, and original eyes, I still couldn't afford a Maas Biolabs CyberEyes deck.

They've even kicked me out of the Gentleman Loser.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Excellent work, ti dave. (2.33 / 6) (#207)
by ninja rmg on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 10:42:46 PM EST

Through your efforts, this site has just become a great deal more punk rock.

I salute you.



Most excellent work, if ti dave gets pregnant next (1.50 / 6) (#226)
by mami on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:54:01 AM EST

time, I am well prepared to offer him my services to perform the procedure on him.

Prevention is better than cure (none / 2) (#276)
by Big Dogs Cock on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:56:51 AM EST

Fuck them up the arse instead.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
Of course you can get pregnant through anal sex... (none / 0) (#328)
by Yer Mom on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 05:17:38 AM EST

...where do you think spammers come from?
--
Smoke crack. Worship Satan. Admin Unix.
[ Parent ]
A Note for Latecomers: (none / 2) (#291)
by ti dave on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:18:58 PM EST

I recommend that you also read the interesting Editorial comments attached to this story.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

A Note for ti dave: (none / 1) (#300)
by mami on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:24:37 AM EST

I recommend to all latecomers to skip reading all comments to this article.

[ Parent ]
Pish-tosh! (3.00 / 2) (#301)
by ti dave on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:55:25 PM EST

Now, now. Let's not be bitter, because that's a Brandenburger trait.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Huh? What's Pish-tosh and (none / 0) (#308)
by mami on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:45:12 PM EST

what has Brandenburg to do with bitterness? Arghh, what a waste of time all this.

[ Parent ]
Aren't you German? (none / 0) (#317)
by ti dave on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 02:33:12 PM EST

You should understand the reference.

Also, the word is an Anglicism that means "nonsense!", in an exclamatory way.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Well, didn't you know that Germans are dumb? (none / 0) (#318)
by mami on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 02:47:44 PM EST

Any questions?

[ Parent ]
I banged a bunch of German chicks, so... (3.00 / 2) (#319)
by ti dave on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 02:52:51 PM EST

Yeah, I suppose you're right.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
the operation will not be televised.nt (none / 1) (#309)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 08:07:12 AM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

male-dominated kuro5hin (2.33 / 3) (#351)
by alifare on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 11:00:01 AM EST

i have to say, this is actually one post i enjoyed. it made me smile. usally kuro5hin is full of female put-down, but this one was done with good humor.

Surgury HOW-TO (3.00 / 2) (#353)
by A55M0NKEY on Thu Apr 01, 2004 at 10:56:59 AM EST

That was really cool.

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for abortions of all types. I think most everyone should get an abortion, and believe they should be legal until at least the 400th trimester.

But.. Isn't posting this info illegal in the US? Isn't there some medieval US law against posting info on how to get an abortion?

Having said that, I also wanted to say that I appreciate having medical info like this available. Not that I plan to be performing any do-it-yourself abortions but who knows, maybe some chick will get knocked up by Brundle-Fly and need to do this to herself...

Does know of any sources for medical knowlege such as how to use/prescribe prescription drugs, perform minor or major surgeries ( appendix removals, gall-bladder removals, bullet/stick/arrow/whatever removals, amputations, stitches ) how to diagnose and treat common diseases. I realise that it is unwise not to take advantage of the expert medical care that is available in industrialized countries when it is in fact available, but the survivalist in me want to know how to best remove my arm with a jacknife should it become pinned under a boulder in the middle of nowhere. What if society should collapse or if I should become stranded as a beggar in a third world country and become infested with Bot flies. I wanna know how to cut one out and stitch myself back up. I want to know how to inject pain numbing drugs so as not to feel it and also not die of the drugs. I want to know how to tell which antibiotic to steal from the pharmacy should it be Mad Max world and I get a crossbow bolt infection.

I almost did buy a big ass bottle of Neomycin for 12 bucks from the farm store. It's the active ingredient in Neosporin which costs like 6 bucks a tube and is much less concentrated. I could dilute it into some vaseline and have the equivalent of like a gallon of the antibiotic ointment. ( Neomycin, I read will make you permanently deaf and also unable to balance should it be ingested internally )

I buy and use on myself an animal medical product, Bag-Balm from the Farm Store ( they also sell it in the Grocery store ) which is meant for cows udders. It works for human chapped hands and lips too.

There really ought to be a large gradiation of levels between regular person and doctor. One of the reasons medical costs are so high is that you have to go to a full fledged doctor to get any treatment. I bet 99 % of doctor appointments made for earaches, colds, etc could be handled as effectively by someone with much less training who could escalate the tough cases to the next level of doctorness. Also, I bet people could learn much of that stuff themselves.

The only reason I see why you wouldn't want the general public to be able to perform do-it-yourself medicine is addictive drugs and antibiotic resistance. You will get morons that will take amoxicillin like a daily vitamin in the mistaken belief that it will prevent them from getting ill, and you will get people high on morphine all the time. Those kinds of drugs should probably only be able to be prescribed by someone with a license and even then addictive ones not prescribed to ones self.

With something like morphine, you might very well need morphine after open heart surgury and you might even get slightly addicted to it during treatment but this is not a problem when it will no longer be available when the prescription runs out. I bet habit forming drugs would be prescribed much less if it were commonly available because of the danger of addiction.

A doctor has put so much effort into obtaining the training neccessary to be able to practice medicine legally that they are unlikely to accept an extra $50.00 from an addict to get an Oxycontin prescription. But if some levels of medical license could be obtained with just a 12 week course then someone like that wouldn't be as afraid of losing their medical qualification.

How much security do antibiotics need? Since many are sold for veterinary purposes it seems the would be abusers aren't that intent on getting them. These could probably be prescribed by a practitioner with less invested in their license.

What about morphine? If you are on a battlefield with your leg blown off, then a first-aid medic is liable to tie on a bandage and stick you with some morphine. This person is qualified to make the decision as to whether morphine is indicated. Highly trained medical professionals are not necessarily needed to prescribe it. Why should they be drug-security-guards? Why should any medical professional be a security guard for drugs?

Maybe what we need is to have a database that keeps track of what gets prescribed to who and what prescriptions actually get filled. We could then trust people with less invested in their licenses to practice medicine to practice medicine at the level they are qualified to practice at regardless of how 'dangerous' the drugs they use. If someone filled too many 'suspicious prescriptions' they could be automatically flagged for an investigation by a highly qualified board, and there by rescued from their own doctor shopping.

Sources. (none / 0) (#354)
by ti dave on Thu Apr 01, 2004 at 02:15:05 PM EST

All of the procedures you listed are in my source material, the U.S> Army Special Forces Medical Handbook.

There really ought to be a large gradiation of levels between regular person and doctor.
Essentially, there already is. Nurse Practitioners, Physician's Assistants, etc.

Maybe what we need is to have a database that keeps track of what gets prescribed to who and what prescriptions actually get filled.
Already done. The DEA runs it.

If someone filled too many 'suspicious prescriptions' they could be automatically flagged for an investigation by a highly qualified board
Most, if not all, states already do this.
We had a doc in Port Angeles lose his practice and Board standing last year, for frauduleent prescriptions.
It happens pretty frequently.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
My opinion.... (none / 1) (#357)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:05:26 AM EST

I am a Catholic, and very PRO-life.

My very religion says that all life is sacred, and should be cherished.

However, bypassing even my religion, is my understanding of the sciences. D&C IS a part of medical procedures, and for those trying to understand these, explanations like there are invaluable. D&C procedures are also valuable for removing uterine polyps, cancer growths, or other ABNORMAL groths, along with abortion.

The fact that TI Dave tried to best explain what this procedure entails gives value to it, and this community. Perhaps even this information JUST MIGHT save some ladies life from realizing that a doctor's doing a part of the procedure wrong..

Ahhh kuro5hin (none / 1) (#358)
by lukestuts on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 02:07:55 PM EST

Just come back after a few months of Slashdot - I'd forgotten what gets posted here. Good to be back.

HOWTO: Perform the Dilation & Curettage Surgical Procedure | 357 comments (245 topical, 112 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!