Jivin J’s Life Links 8-31-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- LOL Quote of the Week from NARAL’s Ted Miller discussing Virginia’s abortion clinic regulations:“Abortion providers are already the most regulated health care providers in the state…..” he said.
- U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks has ruled that parts of Texas’ ultrasound law violates the Constitution:He ordered that the state cannot impose penalties against doctors who don’t fulfill its requirements. “The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions,” wrote Sparks, granting the temporary injunction. “Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes.”
Well, now we know Judge Sparks knows next to nothing about who provides abortions. It’s not like there’s a slew of competent abortionists who are going to stop providing abortions because they have to describe ultrasound images to women. Second, if they can’t take the time to describe an ultrasound, are they really that competent?
Here’s the ruling. Texas’ attorney general has already filed a motion to appeal.
- A Kansas judge has ordered the state to continue funding Planned Parenthood on a quarterly basis while a state law barring them from funding is enjoined.

If there’s one thing pro-aborts are great at, it’s ensuring they can legislate from the bench.
If there’s one thing pro-aborts are great at, it’s ensuring they can legislate from the bench.
Bingo. Roe was brought about by judicial fiat as well. So this should be unsurprising.
The reason we have courts is to decide if laws comply with the Constitution. That’s not legislating, that’s judging.
The reason we have courts is to decide if laws comply with the Constitution.
And where do judges and scholars who feel the Constitution is “a living document” fit into this equation, Hal? *cough-LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH-cough*
Are you alleging that this particular judge feels that way or are you just venting about the super-horrible federal court system? Conservative judges strike down their fair share of legitimately-passed legislation too. I never hear any complaints about “activist judges” when that happens, curiously.
“if they can’t take the time to describe an ultrasound, are they really that competent?” – now now, you know that’s not what it’s about.
“compels physicians to engage in government-mandated speech”
“requiring patients to submit to such speech, regardless of whether it is wanted or medically necessary”
“unconstitutionally discriminates between abortion providers and other medical facilities”
These are what it’s about – the perpetration of ideology. From those who claim to be against government interference.
Reality: “compels physicians to engage in government-mandated speech”
Exactly – if what was mandated was from a pro-choice point of view, you’d hear such a hue and cry, such whining and moaning as has rarely been heard before.
LOL. Forcing physicians to tell the truth is NOT a “violation of free speech”. It’s full disclosure and any real, responsible physician should have no problem disclosing everything to the patient before he/she does a surgical procedure.
If I were having a boob job and the physician failed to warn me about the risks, describe the procedure, and give me detailed info on what to expect before, during, and after the surgery then we’d say he was negligent in his duty to his patient. But when it’s abortion, the less the woman knows, the better – right? Pfft. Can’t have the truth cutting into the bottom line, after all.
Why should anyone be surprised by this?
“Forcing physicians to tell the truth is NOT a “violation of free speech”. – quite correct army_wife. But that doesn’t quite represent the scenario. The intent of the legislation is to force women to see and/or hear things that they might not wish to. It is an attempt to force the doctor to show or describe the sonogram to the patient even when the patient says ‘no thanks’. It is driven by ideology not a desire for enhanced patient care.
If I were to have a colonoscopy I would want to know what the doctor may find but I’m not sure I’d want to view the video or hear a detailed description of every millimetre of the journey. All I really want is an ‘all clear’ or ‘this may be an issue’.
Ah yes, colonoscopy. My doctor showed me nice colored pictures of the inside of my colon. I don’t recall him asking whether or not I wished to see it. They just were included in the course of the discussion.
Here is an interesting article by a Planned Parenthood client. Now I know it is from LiveAction but you really wouldn’t expect to find such a “testimonial” from an unsatisfied client on the PP website. http://liveaction.org/blog/my-planned-parenthood-abortion-story/
Perhaps the reason legislators pass these kinds of laws is due to reports of these refusals by so-called medical professionals to provide the information requested by the patient.
When the abortion industry starts acting like medical professionals, perhaps your claims that the government is over-reaching will have validity.
“Ah yes, colonoscopy. My doctor showed me nice colored pictures of the inside of my colon. I don’t recall him asking whether or not I wished to see it. They just were included in the course of the discussion.”
That’s because those things are medically relevant. Pictures of a soon-to-be-terminated fetus are not medically relevant to a woman who is about to have a one-time outpatient procedure.
That’s because those things are medically relevant. Pictures of a soon-to-be-terminated fetus are not medically relevant to a woman who is about to have a one-time outpatient procedure.
Spoken like a true sociopath. Hellooo, Joan.
“In (later) abortions, doctors must count to make sure all the body parts of the aborted baby have been removed. Sometimes parts are left behind in the woman’s body.
This can cause infections, bleeding, and death.”
Ummm…no, joan. You’re wrong, in so many ways, you’re just wrong.
“In court records, an abortionist describes what he says he extracted, and a patient describes what she says she expelled at home:
Abortionist: “I clearly identified all the significant parts. I saw the calvarium. I saw the spine. I saw extremities.”
Patient: “the entire face, two arms, and a portion of rib cage and back.” ”
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You’re just a wrong human being all around. That is “medically relevant”, in so many ways.
The pro-aborts are all about misinformation. Describing an ultrasound goes completely against their misinformation campaign cause it forces them to decscibe the human person ….ars, legs fingers toes nose mouth and ehartbeat. They can’t sell the lie if they are forced to face the baby in an ultrasound.
Excuse me Reality but doctors are forced to tell the truth all the time. Patients must be advised thoroughly, whether they like it or not, and this includes looking at x-rays, ultrasounds, lab reports, MRIs, etc.
truthseeker and Mary. No-one is saying that doctors should not tell the truth or that they should be able to withhold information.
If I do not wish to know all the ins and outs of other types of medical tests, just a positive or negative result, I am not compelled to listen.
But you know as well as I do that this legislation is intended to force the patient to observe and listen to information that they may not wish to or need to.
It is entirely predicated on ideology, not patient care.
Reality, leaving this information out is predicated entirely on ideology and would cause the patient to make an ill-informed decision that they may later regret. Having this information ahead of time means the patient will make an educated decision. How does it benefit the patient to leave out information about the developemental stage of the baby?
You keep missing the point truthseeker.
It’s about the patient’s choice. If there’s any ‘leaving this information out is predicated entirely on ideology’ it’s an ideology that a patient should not have to endure receiving more information than they want or need.
The legislation is intended to force the patient into a certain situation they may not want. That is where the only ideology lies. If the woman wants an abortion the only interest she would have in the sonogram results is whether or not there is anything which impacts on the procedure.
Reality,
You miss the point, doctors are required to give this information. How else does a patient make a truly informed choice? Sure patients may zone out when you go into risks, procedures, etc. but they still must be told and this must be documented, i.e. patient informed of risks and alternatives. This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with legalities and patient care. BTW the gov’t dictates to us in the medical field all the time. Ever hear of OSHA or HIPAA? Try googling it and you’ll get an eyeful of government regulations and rules that we must adhere to if we want to keep our jobs and our medical facilities open. So help me we were told at a professional meeting that OSHA agents are authorized to carry guns. I don’t know if there’s any truth to it as I have made every effort to avoid them since.
No you are not compelled to listen, but your doctor will certainly document that he/she informed you and will make every effort to make you understand the importance of listening and being thoroughly informed. You may not like what you’re hearing, but your doctor will tell you anyway.
Reality, the reason I see these laws as being necessary (from a legal standpoint not a moral one) is too many first hand accounts of doctors (in general and abortionists in specific) lying to patients. I myself have not only caught OBs in lies, but in my 2nd pregnancy one of them actually admitted it is their normal practice to lie! The medical field doesn’t care if doctors lie, and hospitals and clinics are too busy protecting their doctors to fight for patient rights. If a woman goes in and asks an abortionist ‘what is my baby like right now?’ when she is struggling to decide if she should go through with an abortion and she is told ‘oh, it’s just a clump of cells’, that’s a lie and deprives her of informed consent. But the medical community could care less that she’s been lied to. As it stands it’s almost impossible to get the police or even a civil lawyer to care either. Laws like this not only make it more likely that the doctor will actually tell her the truth ‘well, at this stage the fetus isabout 2 inches long, has a heartbeat and most of it’s organ systems are differentiated, etc’ so that she can make an informed decision, but it also allows for a lied-to woman to have greater recourse under the law. Unfortunately since falcifying records (also something I’ve personally seen happen and have heard many 1st hand accounts of) and lying for colegues is also so common even with such laws in place it still is usually going to come down to the woman’s word against the doctor’s word and the staff is going to back up the doctor.
Until and unless doctors are actually held accountable for lying to patients (and I’m not just refering to abortionists!) people are going to keep pushing for more and more precise government mandated and controlled disclosure laws. It’s NOT a good answer, but what’s the alternative when 1) the medical community refuses to discipline lying/abusive doctors 2) the police ignore absuse/battery by medical personel, and 3) civil recourses are non-existant unless significant, long-term *physical* harm can be proved and frequently not even then since the doctor’s insurance pays the damages not the doctor.
Reality: “If I do not wish to know all the ins and outs of other types of medical tests, just a positive or negative result, I am not compelled to listen.”
If the there’s a compelling state interest in ensuring that doctors disclose matter bearing significantly on an informed decision, the doctors are obliged to do so whether the patient wishes to listen or not.
How about if the information is given on a DVD that includes both generic and patient-specific information? That patient would sign for it, allowing the doctor to be accountable for following the law but allowing the patient discretion to deal with the DVD as she sees fit.
Any problem with that?
Ever sign a mortgage? I don’t want to wade through that crap either (“OK, this form says that you acknowledge receiving a notice that the truth in form-disclosure provision of the real estate paperwork simplification act of 2004 has been notarized in triplicate; and these two forms just need your initials to indicate receipt of the other two . . . “) — but the various parties have legal obligations to disclose things. And I’m “forced” to sit through it.
Big deal, Reality. This happens all the time — but suddenly, when it happens to be abortion and it’s perceived as pro-lifers getting their camel’s nose under the tent in some way, pro-choicers go all histrionic.
As usual, this discussion misses the mark: informed consent in medicine relates only to things that are medically relevant to the patient, not (potentially) morally relevant. would you also have doctors explain to every single patient seeking a blood transfusion that some religions consider blood transfusions to be immoral? Of course not, because 1. that would be worthless information for most people, 2. if those moral considerations do somehow apply to someone in that situation, then it’s their own responsibility to determine that, not the doctor’s, and 3. it would be impossible to inform every single patient undertaking every single procedure of every single thing that could possibly have some moral import.
Joanie, like it or not, when a human is pregnant and gestating another human, there are two patients.
You can choose to ignore that second patient, but that merely reflects the cognitive dissonance of some members of our society.
Morality cannot be removed from medicine without grave consequence.
Joan, but when you have a known problem with doctors who answer patients asking ‘is this real or synthetic blood’? With ‘oh don’t worry, it’s synthetic’ whether it is or not, then society might need to step in and dictate that *all* doctors tell *all* patients whether it’s real or synthetic (regardless of whether that parituclar patient cares) because they have a proven track record of lying and can no longer be trusted. Doctors lie. They’ve been caught lying so much in fact that people no longer trust them. When you can’t trust someone you have to monitor them until and unless they prove they can be trusted.
Hi Joan,
I should have been shown the ultrasound.(I never had one)
I should have been shown every body part and been told about every organ.
I should have gotten to listen to my baby’s heartbeat.(not done either)
I should have been given fetal development information. I was told it was “a bunch of cells” at 10 weeks along!
I should have been told how painful an abortion is.
I should have been told I might turn to drugs and alcohol and suicide.
I should have been told about the nightmares.
I should have been told that abortion holds risks.
I should have been told the truth.
I should have been told that abortion would end the life of my child.
I deserved to have informed consent. I had a right to know.
If I had only known.
My daughter would be 20.
The distant thunder.
“Joanie, like it or not, when a human is pregnant and gestating another human, there are two patients.”
If this was the case there wouldn’t be any abortions to begin with. But, I have been assured repeatedly here, these onerous new regulations are not intended simply to burden or impede the ability to get an abortion (which would be unconstitutional, not to mention a thoroughly underhanded way of changing the law when perfectly legitimate and democratic means of doing so are available), but to guarantee that clinics meet certain standards, entirely for the benefit and wellbeing of the mother. Right?
“Morality cannot be removed from medicine without grave consequence.”
Is that a “yes” to my question about whether doctors should be required to inform blood transfusion patients of the fact that some religions consider the procedure to be deeply immoral?
“I deserved to have informed consent. I had a right to know.”
You had informed consent, Carla, and no credible judge, doctor, or medical ethicist would ever determine otherwise. What you really think you “deserve” is to have basic information about human biology, available in any encyclopedia or relevant high school text book in existence, spoonfed to you. Your ignorance is not someone else’s responsibility.
Talk about missing the mark, Joan. Did you not just see the quotes I put up earlier CLEARLY INDICATING that viewing the “soon-to-be-terminated fetus” WOULD be medically relevant for a woman, due to things like the fact that leaving part of that fetus inside of her CAN CAUSE AN INFECTION? Hell, if anything, if you want to start splitting hairs and getting down and dirty about what is medically relevant, it’d probably be medically relevant for her and the doctor to watch the abortion being performed on the ultrasound together and account for all of the body parts afterward together so they can both ensure the entire body is removed and prevent infection.
YEAH. C’MON. LET’S GET MEDICALLY RELEVANT.
“Talk about missing the mark, Joan. Did you not just see the quotes I put up earlier CLEARLY INDICATING that viewing the “soon-to-be-terminated fetus” WOULD be medically relevant for a woman, due to things like the fact that leaving part of that fetus inside of her CAN CAUSE AN INFECTION?”
Oh, and viewing an ultrasound beforehand gives her the magical ability to peek inside her uterus after the fact and make sure he didn’t miss anything. Makes sense.
“Hell, if anything, if you want to start splitting hairs and getting down and dirty about what is medically relevant, it’d probably be medically relevant for her and the doctor to watch the abortion being performed on the ultrasound together and account for all of the body parts afterward together so they can both ensure the entire body is removed and prevent infection.”
Good idea. We should also stop anesthetizing heart surgery patients so they can watch the whole show live and make sure the doctor is doing it right.
Oh, and viewing an ultrasound beforehand gives her the magical ability to peek inside her uterus after the fact and make sure he didn’t miss anything. Makes sense.
No, but I’m sure it’ll give her a better idea of what’s going on and that she should get her a$$ to an ER if she has an arm dangling out of her vagina that she had previously seen on the ultrasound before the abortion. “Blobs” don’t have arms, so she might not know otherwise.
Good idea. We should also stop anesthetizing heart surgery patients so they can watch the whole show live and make sure the doctor is doing it right.
Forgive my ignorance, but what sort of anesthetic is used for most abortions? I didn’t realize that every woman was being put completely under. And besides, a heart patient is typically kept for observation by professionals after the surgery to make certain nothing went wrong. They’re just scooting these women out the door afterward. They NEED to know, so they can save themselves, because nobody in the abortion provider’s building is going to do so.
You never disappoint me, Joan. :)
You had informed consent, Carla, and no credible judge, doctor, or medical ethicist would ever determine otherwise. What you really think you “deserve” is to have basic information about human biology, available in any encyclopedia or relevant high school text book in existence, spoonfed to you. Your ignorance is not someone else’s responsibility.
Thinking of all of those women sitting in their OB/GYN’s office today. Sitting and waiting to hear their babies heartbeat. Waiting to see their little one on ultrasound. Watching the screen and seeing those organs and the movement of their child. Watching the ultrasound technician take the measurement of the femur bone. Reading the books on fetal development and looking at the posters of fetal development on the office walls.
How flipping ignorant they are. How spoonfed.
“No, but I’m sure it’ll give her a better idea of what’s going on and that she should get her a$$ to an ER if she has an arm dangling out of her vagina that she had previously seen on the ultrasound before the abortion. “Blobs” don’t have arms, so she might not know otherwise.”
Someone who is deficient enough not to realize that she needs emergency medical treatment in the event that superfluous body parts are dangling out of her vagina has more serious issues than whether or not she was shown an ultrasound before having an abortion.
“Forgive my ignorance, but what sort of anesthetic is used for most abortions? I didn’t realize that every woman was being put completely under. And besides, a heart patient is typically kept for observation by professionals after the surgery to make certain nothing went wrong. They’re just scooting these women out the door afterward. They NEED to know, so they can save themselves, because nobody in the abortion provider’s building is going to do so.”
Alright then. In place of heart surgery, consider any other operation where anesthesia is not induced. The point, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, is that the entire purpose of having a doctor perform an operation instead of going the gin-and-kitchen knife, DIY route, is that they are a professional whom you are trusting to take care of any complications that arise in the first place.
“All of those women sitting in their OB/GYN’s office today. Sitting and waiting to hear their babies heartbeat. Waiting to see their little one on ultrasound. Watching the screen and seeing those organs and the movement of their child. Reading the books on fetal development and looking at the posters of fetal development on the office walls.
How flipping ignorant they are.
How spoonfed.”
No, Carla, they’re doing what you could have easily done and educating themselves before having a major procedure performed. There’s no shame in not knowing something, as long as you’re willing to take the initiative to change that fact when it becomes relevant. A better analogy to your situation would instead be a woman, 15 hours into labor, screaming “I didn’t know that childbirth is painful! Nobody told me! Woe is me!”
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2007/08/anniversary-fatal-infection-after.html
Oh, denial. How I never get tired of seeing you from Pro-Legal-Abortionists. That’s because we’re winning. ^_~
Do you know how much time that took? Googling “died of infection after incomplete abortion”. You guys really aren’t going to be able to hide the truth from everyone much longer, not with all this “internet” business running around being all informative and sh–.
What major procedure is a pregnant woman having performed in the OB/GYN’s office?
Pretty sure Sydney was just learning more about her baby. You know. Finding out through ultrasound how her baby is doing.
Sorry, but you do not get to make any analogies about what you think my abortion was like for me. You don’t get to tell me what I could have easily done or not done.
Oh and just an fyi. Nobody really knows how childbirth will be for them personally until they experience it for themselves. My four? Piece of cake.
?If this was the case there wouldn’t be any abortions to begin with.
No, Joan, the fact is that if the mother WANTS the child, the child is treated like a patient. If she DOESN’T WANT the child, the child is treated like medical waste. Cognitive dissonance, and medical dishonesty.
But, I have been assured repeatedly here, these onerous new regulations are not intended simply to burden or impede the ability to get an abortion
The “onerous” ultrasounds are important for reasons of informed consent. And I would LOVE for regulations to shut down every abortion clinic, and I’ll freely admit that. The “ability to get an abortion” is the ability to kill preborn humans, which I am against.
Is that a “yes” to my question about whether doctors should be required to inform blood transfusion patients of the fact that some religions consider the procedure to be deeply immoral?
Abortion isn’t a question of religious belief. The human fetus is human. That’s biology. It is medical fact. Abortion kills another growing, developing human being. This is extremely relevant information, whether “some religions” believe it is or isn’t, because the medical procedure is the actual removal and dismemberment of that human being.
You had informed consent, Carla, and no credible judge, doctor, or medical ethicist would ever determine otherwise.
No worries, Carla – Joanie doesn’t even give a crap about the women in China who DIDN’T have informed consent and were subject to forced abortion. “Medicine” without morality, and all that…
Alright then. In place of heart surgery, consider any other operation where anesthesia is not induced.
Ok. Let’s do. How about the one where I went in for my stitches when I was a kid and the doctor explained everything he was doing and why to my mother while my mom and grandma watched. (granted, it was mostly for my benefit, but I still got more as a kid going in for stitches than these women undergoing a considerably more significant operation are getting)
“Do you know how much time that took? Googling “died of infection after incomplete abortion”.”
You’re just being silly now. No remotely competent doctor would hand a woman a bag and tell her to go expel fetal parts into it, and any doctor who would do that wouldn’t adhere to a law requiring that he show his patients ultrasound photos in the first place.
“What major procedure is a pregnant woman having performed in the OB/GYN’s office?”
I said before having a major procedure performed. That major procedure, of course, is clinically-assisted childbirth.
“The “onerous” ultrasounds are important for reasons of informed consent. And I would LOVE for regulations to shut down every abortion clinic, and I’ll freely admit that. The “ability to get an abortion” is the ability to kill preborn humans, which I am against.”
We’ve already established that showing patients ultrasounds is not a component of informed consent.
And I’m glad that you’re fully and openly embracing your utilitarian tendencies by admitting that ends, at least sometimes, justify means that you wouldn’t accept in other situations. (Like, for example, using excessive government regulations to bludgeon the coal or natural gas industries into extinction.)
“Abortion isn’t a question of religious belief.”
The morality of abortion is a question decided by religious beliefs or other factors that are irrelevant to the legal and ethical concept of informed consent.
“They’re just scooting these women out the door afterward.”
Well, that’s basic healthcare economics for you. Fewer medical schools teaching abortion=fewer doctors capable of doing so=less time for each patient. What do you expect if there is one physician who provides abortions for everybody in a tri-county area, especially when there are very strict regulations on the time-frame in which a woman can obtain an abortion?
“Oh and just an fyi. Nobody really knows how childbirth will be for them personally until they experience it for themselves. My four? Piece of cake.”
Well bully for you. My mother had asthma attacks during the last trimester that landed her in the hospital twice, plus intense postpartum depression. My aunt had an episiotomy with her last child, which resulted in a rare infection a few years later during which she had to use a catheter. These are serious potential sequelae that my mother and aunt should have been informed about, no? They weren’t. Oh well, though, right?
Hi Megs,
Your comments to me don’t make sense. My comments about my four childbirth experiences were directed to a comment made by Joan. Got it??
But be sure to make it seem like I was talking about your aunt and mother.
We’ve already established that showing patients ultrasounds is not a component of informed consent.
Oh, “we” have, have “we?” That’s interesting. You can say it all you want, Joan, but that doesn’t make it “established.”
The morality of abortion is a question decided by religious beliefs or other factors that are irrelevant to the legal and ethical concept of informed consent.
Are you saying you believe morality is merely a religious construct? Or is it just the morality of abortion you have trouble with? Interesting…
I see you mentioned “utilitarian tendencies” above. Obviously you believe that the ends (eliminating the problem of unwanted pregnancy) justify the means (killing the preborn human to end the problem).
My mother had asthma attacks during the last trimester that landed her in the hospital twice, plus intense postpartum depression. My aunt had an episiotomy with her last child, which resulted in a rare infection a few years later during which she had to use a catheter. These are serious potential sequelae that my mother and aunt should have been informed about, no? They weren’t. Oh well, though, right?
Serious enough to kill a third trimester child? No.
I assume your mother and aunt have recovered. I’m hopeful that they have.
Preborn children do not recover from abortion.
Your comments to me don’t make sense. My comments about my four childbirth experiences were directed to a comment made by Joan. Got it??
But be sure to make it seem like I was talking about your aunt and mother.
Megan’s not really here about her aunt and mother. We all know why she’s really here.
We’re talking about informed consent, no? Before going through labor and delivery, shouldn’t a physician have warned my relatives about all potential complications?
Before going through labor and delivery, shouldn’t a physician have warned my relatives about all potential complications?
Yes, I believe women should know the risks of labor and delivery. This is why they see their OBGYN, and hopefully, why they will have educated themselves prior to delivery. They should research the risks of episiotomy and have a birth plan for their choices for labor and delivery. If they want an episiotomy, they should know the risks. If they don’t, they should know the risks of tearing. And if things do not go according to birth plan, you consent to the medical professionals around you to make the best choices for your and your child’s health during the process.
“Abortion isn’t a question of religious belief. The human fetus is human. That’s biology. It is medical fact.”
Could you provide some quotes from college level medical textbooks which definitively state that a fetus is “a human being.” I would especially like to see information from colleges of obstetrics and gynecology.
And regarding the ultrasounds. I had an ultrasound to determine the size of my uterine fibroids. The doctor didn’t ask if I wanted to see the pictures. He also didn’t have a state approved script to read from in discussing the results of the sonogram. The anti-choicers, however, would force all women to not only have ultrasounds but to hear a state approved lecture which, I suspect, could include things like “this is human being that you’re murdering” and god is very unhappy with women who murder their babies. I know, this sounds ridiculous but what’s to stop anti-choicers when they’re on an abortion shaming roll!
CC, please define “human being” for us, in your opinion. Thanks.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
BTW, do you believe a human fetus is human? Do you believe it is the genetic and biological offspring of its human parents?
?Could you provide some quotes from college level medical textbooks
P.S. – CC, this really isn’t rocket science. It’s biology. This isn’t just taught in college, but beginning at the elementary school levels. Your denial of this is really pathetic.
Defend killing the preborn all you like, but deny the fact that they are human, and you just look insane.
The anti-choicers, however, would force all women to not only have ultrasounds but to hear a state approved lecture which, I suspect, could include things like “this is human being that you’re murdering” and god is very unhappy with women who murder their babies. I know, this sounds ridiculous but what’s to stop anti-choicers when they’re on an abortion shaming roll!
Yeah, you’re right. It does sound ridiculous.
CC, please define “human being” for us, in your opinion. Thanks.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
BTW, do you believe a human fetus is human? Do you believe it is the genetic and biological offspring of its human parents?
***
Your link is to a collection of comments used to justify the fetus as human – and not all commentary supports the contention. It’s from an index of pro-life articles so there is a bias. It was composed on a Princeton server by somebody from “Princeton Pro-Life“ and does not reflect the opinion of the university nor the opinion of all the students, many of whom are pro-choice including one who states that “Sherif rightly states that the human embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens. But he fails to argue why species membership is of any moral import whatsoever…”
I believe that the ”species” of fetus is “human” but no more a human “person” deserving of any rights than my former fibroids.
But again, when embryology and other aspects of reproductive medicine are taught, do the professors define the fetus as “a human being” who, in abortion, is being “killed?” Do they use the emotionally and religiously loaded terminology of the anti-choice movement or do they use the correct and appropriate scientific and clinical terminology?
BTW, fertile women, who have had unprotected sex before their period, should mourn the period because it’s possible that some little “people,” (zygotes) that didn’t attach (implant) to the uterus wall, get flushed down the toilet. How sad.
CC,
” It’s from an index of pro-life articles so there is a bias. It was composed on a Princeton server by somebody from “Princeton Pro-Life”
If I were to copy and paste the quotes up onto a website that was affiliated with nothing, would you then give them more credibility? I really don’t understand this objection at all. You asked for quotes from medical and college textbooks, and that is what you were given. Does a quote from a college textbook become less of a quote from a college textbook because of where one finds it? Either the quotes really are in textbooks or they aren’t. Where we happen to find them is comlpetely irrelevant to the question of their accuracy.
“Sherif rightly states that the human embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens. But he fails to argue why species membership is of any moral import whatsoever…”
Yes, but this was not your original contention. You stated “Could you provide some quotes from college level medical textbooks which definitively state that a fetus is “a human being.” and this is what was provided. We never claimed that this proves the moral status of the unborn. If you would like to know some reasons why one might give any sort of moral status to teh unborn, then please ask, but don’t ask for proof that the unborn is human and then turn around and criticize our proof that the unborn is human for not being proof that the unborn have value.
“I believe that the ”species” of fetus is “human” but no more a human “person” deserving of any rights than my former fibroids. ”
So this REALLY raises the question as to why above you demanded proof that the unborn is human, blew off scientific quotes that the unborn is human as being biased because of where the quotes were found, and now admit that the unborn is human. This leads me to believe that there really isn’t a well established, coherent, and succinct justification for abortion that you have in mind.
Actually, this is sadly common amongst pro-choicers. They argue that the fetus is not human, and then once they are confronted with the overwhelming evidence that they are human, go to the next step and argue that they are not persons or that they do not have moral worth. Why not just claim that they do not have moral worth or are not persons to begin with? Because being pro choice is a ground decision many times- that is, one begins with the assumption that the pro choice position is the correct one and then builds the rest of their evidence and worldview on this starting assumption. It is usually not something that is deduced from an argument, or come to upon careful consideration of the facts, but a ground assumption. Once particular personhood arguments don’t seem to be going very well, we will then see a retreat into the “bodily rights” argument.
“BTW, fertile women, who have had unprotected sex before their period, should mourn the period because it’s possible that some little “people,” (zygotes) that didn’t attach (implant) to the uterus wall, get flushed down the toilet. How sad. ”
Yes, this is certainly possible. What follows concerning the morality of abortion and the ontological status of the unborn?
Thanks, Bobby, for responding to CC’s comments while I was out with the family this afternoon.
I agree – why does it matter who cites the embryology texts? What does that have to do with what those quotes state?
Not even pro-aborts leave reality far enough to deny that abortion is a wrneching decision because they are terminating the life their offspring. That being said I would like one of the pro-aborts to tell me how does it benefit the mother to leave out information about the developemental stage of the baby?
”’crickets”’
Well truthseeker,
What I have gathered from this thread is that I should have already KNOWN the development of my child before the abortion. I had no right to ANY information of any kind about abortion at the mill because that is spoon feeding. I was given NO info of any kind about the procedure, the risks or anything about my baby except it was “a bunch of cells.” And I guess that was good enough for me because I was just ignorant in the first place.
A big thank you to Joanie for clearing that all up for me!!
“That being said I would like one of the pro-aborts to tell me how does it benefit the mother to leave out information about the developemental stage of the baby?”
While I agree that patients should be apprised of risks and complication surrounding any surgical procedure, what benefit accrues from describing the developmental stage of the fetus? As an abortion is a procedure to remove a fetus, what relevence is there is describing the state of development other than to push a guilt trip the patient? From a strictly medicat perspective it’s unnecessary. From a moralistic “pro-life” perspective, it’s a way to impart the notion that this is a “baby” that shouldn’t be “killed.”
Women have a right to informed consent before abortion!!
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/02/court-south-dakota-law-telling-women-abortion-risks-ok/
CC, thank you for taking the time to post a response but you failed to answer my very specific question to you so I will ask you again. How does it benefit the mother if the abortionist were to leave out information about the developemental stage of the baby?
“How does it benefit the mother if the abortionist were to leave out information about the developemental stage of the baby?”
It neither benefits nor doesn’t benefit. As I said, it’s irrelevant to the surgical procedure. Doctors should be required to provide only information that is germane to the surgical procedure. This isn’t.
CC,
It is germane/relevant to the thousands of women who live in post-abortive regret because they were unaware of the developemental stage of the baby that gets aborted. For you to deny it is relevant is for you to completely ignore the pain and suffering caused to them by this lack of information. If you had it your way unemancipated minors (and others) would continue to get abortion committed on them and never get the truth about what the abortion industry is doing to them for a quick $500.
Thank you truthseeker.
How do proaborts explain the women that are abortion vulnerable or abortion minded outside the mill and upon seeing the ultrasound of their child(usually at a CPC)choose life??
80% of women that do see the ultrasound of their baby choose life.
But that simply must not be germane/relevant.
Carla,
I think the point is it is not the purpose of a consultation to get you to not that the surgery, that is not a legitimate purpose of a consultation
Doctors should never lie to their patients, and if a patient asks for info about the development she should absolutely be told, if the doctor has to say I need to do an ultra sound to tell you before he sure as heck better do one
Should women be told of risks before an abortion absolutely but because the AMA doesn’t recognize post abortion syndrome l don’t see why it would be mentioned
I have only had dental surgery and only had xrays to shown me when something was wrong. I don’t think I am alone on this, I believe doctors routinely take scans and xrays and run tests but normally don’t tell or show the patients unless something is wrong or needs attention. In the event that the doctor sees something that would make the surgery more dangerous for the woman he should tell her, show her if necessary and doing so isn’t at all prejudicial
Well Shannon,
Women should be told the truth before they abort their fully alive human child.
I was told at 10 weeks along that it was “just a bunch of cells” I was shown a filmstrip of a bunch of red circles before my abortion. As though THAT was what I was “terminating.” I was naive enough to believe it and trusted those that told me.
5 years later I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks. I delivered that baby into my hand and saw for myself NOT a bunch of red circles but fingers and toes, hands and arms, a tiny little rump and a perfect little face.
Lies of omission are still lies.
PS The “doctor” never even talked to me. He didn’t look me in the eye or say anything to me before my abortion. Hardly a “consult” with a doctor.
Shannon,
We are talking about a procedure that large numbers of women regret having chosen and we could prevent those regrets by informing them (prior to the procedure) about the reasons so many previous patients ended up regretting having the ‘procedure’ done? How can you think it is proper for any medical doctor to not discuss this with the patient. The regret is the direct result of NOT having told these patients the factual information about the developemental stage of the baby that they are removing.
CC said:
As an abortion is a procedure to remove a fetus, what relevence is there is describing the state of development other than to push a guilt trip the patient?
CC, Patients have the right to know any and all information about known side effects of a procedure. In this case the relevance is precisely the known side effect of guilt that you are trying to avoid by keeping the mother from facing/understanding the biological truth of the life that the surgery would remove from her womb. Like Carla said, the fact that 80% of women who see an ultrasound decide NOT to commit the abortion should scream relevance to you.
Truthseeker,
I am not doubting that some women regret the procedure, I am just saying that a the american medical association doesnt believe post abortion syndrome exist. In order for doctors to tell women they might regret their abortion there must be respected studies that conclude that.
I have no desire to see pychological effects omitted from the risks section of a procedre but I don’t see how doctors could tell patient they are at risk for somethig when the medical community doesn’t believe that abortin carries a risk of regret. When the medical community approves studies that say that, absolutely women should be warned
Carla,
We both agree, you were wronged and lied to. No doctor or nurse should ever be allowed to be lie to a patient when asked a question, that is sort of basic. You did get an abortion 20 years ago but if people are still showing women red film strips to represent their baby, again we agree that is a problem. When a woman asks how far along, what is its development does it have feelings, those questions NEED to be answered in detail, sonograms should be offered.
If I was ever to want an abortion I would have no desire to know what was developed. I wouldn’t want to see a sonogram, it wouldn’t matter. For the women who it doesnt matter to, they shouldn’t be subjected to additional exams that take
valuable time
If it does matter, goodness gracious tell the woman anything she wants to know. No one shod be deceived nor should they be given medically surpurfluous information
Shannon,
It is disingenuous for you to call information about the childs developement medically superfluos. And I find it curious that you would use the word “subjected to” when referrung to consultation about the childs developement. Would you be ok with doctors being forced to consult with patients for five minutes and educate them with pictures/pamphlets of child developemental stages prior to commiting abortion? How about doing it for the sake of the over 80% who are swayed against choosing abortion. If not, then why not? And how would feel about a law that forced abortionists to ‘offer’ women an ultrasound of the baby prior to commiting abortion on them? Would even the offer offend you?
I have no desire to see pychological effects omitted from the risks section of a procedre but I don’t see how doctors could tell patient they are at risk for somethig when the medical community doesn’t believe that abortin carries a risk of regret. When the medical community approves studies that say that, absolutely women should be warned
Shannon, that day is here if not coming soon:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract
Hi Shannon,
Having an abortion 21 years ago has nothing to do with vital information a woman needs to make a fully informed decision. The lies of omission continue today.
Mills continue to lie about the development of a child before an abortion is performed.
And I am simply NOT ALONE in my experience. There are women that wanted to see the ultrasound and were told No. The screen was turned away from them or the transducer moved to another part of their abdomen. “See there is nothing there!”
Why wouldn’t you want to see your fully alive human child on ultrasound before an abortion, Shannon?
Women can and should be offered the opportunity to see their child on ultrasound before an abortion!! They can refuse but it should be offered!!
We are not talking about the dentist and dental xrays are we? :)
Doctors should never lie to their patients, and if a patient asks for info about the development she should absolutely be told
After catching my ex-husband cheating, he claimed that what he was doing wasn’t wrong. His rational was that it was my responsibility to have asked him if he had a mistress.
He knew cheating was wrong just as Shannon knows abortion is wrong.
CC says:
As I said, it’s irrelevant to the surgical procedure. Doctors should be required to provide only information that is germane to the surgical procedure. This isn’t.
You’ve got to be kidding. The developmental state of the fetus has everything to do with the abortion procedure. It determines which abortion procedures are an option and which are not. You just want the doctor/medical staff to speak in generic terms, like number of weeks, instead of specifics about the stage of development.
Yeah. And apparently developmental stage has nothing to do with size and shape of body parts that might be left in the uterus after the abortion that women might need to be informed about, as well. Tell me another bedtime story, mommy. 9_9
Carla we absolutely do agree women SHOULD be offered the OPTION of seeing an ultra sound
We also agree that a doctor who refuses to show a woman an ultrasound at her request or tilts the screen away should hardly be allowed to consider themselves a doctor
Additionally if a woman appears distressed or expresses confusion a doctor should absolutely tell her to take some more time and ask her if she is sure she wants the abortion before she starts.
We disagree on a lot of things but in no way shape or form do I think women should be held down and operated on against her will. Or denied from having the risks read to them. It annoys me how doctors often put the risks in the paperwork and don’t describe them orally not just abortion
doctors all doctors.
I only ask that if you don’t want to see pictures or hear gory details you don’t have to. I have never heard of a queasy patient forced to look at surgery pictures
The only
We also agree that if a woman looks at all distressed
Whoops ignore the last sentence.
And Carla,
I wouldn’t want to see an ultrasound because what I saw would be irrelevant. If it is not a good time to have a baby and I didn’t wish to be
pregnant That is all I would need to know
Some people might care about the development and they should be told. Some want an abortion regardless and they should be given one
If memory serves you are 19. Ask your mom if you can see the ultrasound of you in utero, Shannon. Ask her if that was relevant.
What you are really saying my dear is that it doesn’t matter to you what stage of development your child is at before she is killed in your abortion. It is of no consequence to you how developed she is before she is suctioned from your womb. 8, 9, 10 weeks along and phhhhhtttttt. No matter as long as she dies.
If it is not a good time to have a baby perhaps it is not a good time to have sex. I have heard it could lead to a baby.
And sorry but an abortionist is not a “doctor” by any stretch of the imagination. A doctor helps and heals and remembers to first Do No Harm.
An abortionist kills for profit.
Carla, my mom was 35 and married for a long time when she had me so I dont think my ultrasound would have been relevant or not relevant to her decision to get an abortion because she never considered one… So not entirely sure what that means
I’m not pregnant. So again I don’t really have malice towards a fetus I am not pregnant with. But if I were and decided on an abortion I wouldn’t be swayed by a picture because I had already decided.
I mean very sincerely that I am confused how all these women show up at abortion clinics yet actually want to keep the baby. Why would someone make an appointment for an elective surgery they didn’t want? Clearly I understand that teenagers might be dragged by parents, but the largest group seeking an abortion are university Students like myself who dont live at home I dont really understand how you would get to an abortion office unless you took yourself or let someone else take you
Don’t you think the ultrasound of you in you mother’s womb is relevant?? Whether wanted or not or planned or not a baby is a baby is a baby is a baby is a baby…..which clearly shows in an ultrasound.
Oh good. No malice against a fetus. That’s great. Unless you have already decided to abort. Then……MALICE cause you will end that life.
Well Shannon,
It goes something like this. When all friends and family and boyfriend find out a young woman is pregnant they MAY or MAY NOT support her. She may be completely alone OR they may pressure her to abort in any number of ways. They may be nonchalant(like Doug)and say, “Hey it’s totally up to you.” Which is really just abandonment painted to look like chivalry. Women are sometimes alone, afraid and very confused. It was a crisis for me. I had no idea what to do or who to turn to and nobody stepping in to say, “You can do this. You don’t have to abort! I will help you! We can do this together!”
Some women actually think that abortion mills offer something other than abortion. Which they don’t. The names ARE a tad misleading. Women Care, Womens Choices, Reproductive Health Services etc. So they make an appointment maybe hoping for some counseling and what they find is an abortion sales pitch. Women that may want that child need help and support NOT abortion, wouldn’t you agree, Shannon?
Now we are talking about transportation to the mill?? Um. Bus, car, taxi? Planes, trains and automobiles?
I am so sad for you Shannon. Any child of yours doesn’t even have a chance at life.
I understand how some women may feel pressured to abort but I don’t understand how this negates their choice?
Why are choices only choices when they are easy? When everyone else is doing exactly what they should be doing? If a man tells you he doesn’t care that you are pregnant and he won’t help, and your parents won’t help, and you have an abortion because you don’t want to have a baby unless you are married to the father and you want to remain comfortable, how is that not a choice?
No one gets to decide to have a baby or do anything for that matter only when it is ideal.
If (again with the if’s!) A woman got pregnant and the boy said ‘get an abortion! I am not going to help you,’ it would be a cop out for her to say ‘I wanted this baby I only got an abortion because he made me.’ That wouldnt be true. The truth would be that she only wanted the baby under certain circumstances: if she was going to have a relationship with the father. Her hypothetical decision to have an abortion was indeed her decision: to have a baby alone or not have one at all.
Decisions have to be made as is not in a fictitious world where things were perfect
About transportation I just meant that getting to an abortion clinic takes effort. You have to google “abortion provider” and then drive there….they arent exactly starbucks so I would assume if a woman is in one it is because she took the time and effort to go there.
Frankly reading your comment, I wonder if I am assuming people have more privilege then they do or I am just assuming people are too much like me…
IE women are busy, they look up a lot of info they need on the internet. If they want counseling they find a shrink or a friend…it seems bizzare that a stranger who can’t be all that qualified because real psychiatrists dont work for free, cpuld tell a woman whether or not to have a baby!
Additionally I would think that if you wanted to have the baby you would just have one. Call someone for some doc apointments, but other than that you don’t have to go anywhere ( except the hospital at the end of course
I also don’t really think you need to be concerned for my children who will be conceived and born after I am married, but thanks anyway
Shannon-
The choice to have an abortion was entirely up to me. My child’s father/the man I loved just said that if I didn’t have an abortion, he’d kill himself. But the decision was entirely mine.
If you got pregnant right now you would have an abortion, right? That is sad.
There are enough stories of what brought women to an abortion mill as there are women who have aborted. We all have a story.
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org
Shannon,
here is a link to a first trimester abortion:
http://www.abortionno.org/
You seem to view abortion as a second line of birth control to terminate unwanted pregnancy. If that is true then you should be honest with yourself and watch what the ‘procedure” does to your baby. BEFORE you end up choosing abortion for yourself or recommending it as a birth control choice to others. If you can’t bring yourself to even watch the consequences then you must already know there is something wrong with the choice and that you might actually be moved to change your mind.
Dearest Aubrey,
21 years ago today in my fear and ignorance you died in my abortion. I didn’t know then what I know now. Sweet girl, the day you died is also the day you went to heaven. Though your mother had forsaken you, the Lord received you!(Psalm 27:10)One day(soon and very soon!)you will run to me. You will run to me and I will finally hold you in my arms. Until then, my love I will grieve with hope and long for that glorious day when I behold my precious Savior and my precious daughter.
Carla,
May God bless you and continue to give you strength. I am certain you will be reunited with your angel Aubrey on resurrection day.
Love,
truthseeker
Carla,
that is true, I am not having children until marriage or i’m 35 whichever comes first
Truthseeker,
I have seen an abortion before because I think it is important to be educated. I thought it was pretty repulsive. But it didn’t change my opinions about legal abortion. I wouldn’t want to see that video right before an abortion nor would i want someone else to have to see that right before an abortion.
Nor would I want to make pregnant women see a video of a woman giving vaginal birth. I too have seen a close up of that video, and likewise it was very hard to watch
Abortion videos don’t bother me more than other videos for the simple reason that surgery is gross. Furthermore, they are videos of vagina’s close up! No video zoomed into a woman’s body is particularly pleasant to look at, is even if she is doing someone uncontroversal like having intercourse or giving birth, but because someone looks gross doesnt mean we shouldnt do it.
that is true, I am not having children until marriage or i’m 35 whichever comes first
No…if you get pregnant, even if you’re not married or 35 and you have an abortion, you’ve still had at least one child. It’s just that the abortion ensured that would be a dead child.
Pro-Lifers don’t advocate against the legality of abortion because it “looks gross”. We advocate against it because it is the taking of another human being’s life. THAT is why it is “hard to watch”.
Abortion videos don’t bother me more than other videos for the simple reason that surgery is gross.
Shannon, did you really think that through before posting it? Are you seriously saying that watching a baby get dismembered has no different effect on you then watching a woman give birth? Cause if so, then there is a fundamental difference beteen us. I could watch a woman give birth and see beauty in it and it would not make me sick ( in fact I was in the delivery room caught one of my own babies). But when I pointed you to that abortion video I couldn’t even bring myself to watch again (I had seen it once). The difference between the two are so obvious to me. I am troubled that any person could say they see/feel no difference between the two.
that is true, I am not having children until marriage or i’m 35 whichever comes first
You may not be able to have children when you think you want them. The only guarantee in life is that there is no guarantee.
Do you know how to make God laugh?
Tell Him your plans.
Shannon,
What is the difference between watching a doctor slitting a patient’s throat to perform a tracheotomy and a hired killer slitting a persons throat to make $500?
Really Shannon? Abortion videos wouldnt bother you anymore than any other surgery videos? It’s no worst than say a heart transplant? Well you’re one of the few people who say that, even among pro-choicers.
A lot of pro-choicers would be mortified to see a picture of an abortion. Abortion advocates are usually furious whenever a pro-life protestor shows a picture of an abortion. Surgery can be traumatizing and hard to watch but I’ve never known anyone to be mortified or outraged by a picture of a surgical operation except abortion. That just shows that abortion is not just some surgery and the fact that so many abortion supporters can’t even stand to look at a picture really shows how horrible the procedure is
You will run to me and I will finally hold you in my arms. Until then, my love I will grieve with hope and long for that glorious day when I behold my precious Savior and my precious daughter.
I love you, Mommy
Bless you, Carla.
Thank you, Doug.
Truthseeker,
Do see a difference between the two videos. I was more trying to point out that just because something looks icky doesn’t mean we should never do it point and case childbirth.
A woman risks her life during childbirth, she goes through incredible pain. If that is something she consents to and a risk she assumes, what a beautiful thing, but if doesn’t consent if the risk isn’t worth it than I respect her right not to suffer for the wellbeing of another.
Women have the ability not the duty to bring life into the world
I see both options as fine options for a woman to choose
Hi Shannon,
The way I interpret your previous answers I would say that you would likely be ok with it if we passed a law requiring that abortionists provide consulation services to the mother prior to committing abortion on her. And requiring the consultation include 60 seconds of education (pictures/pamphlets etc.) of the unborn child’s developemental stages and also requiring that the woman be offered an ultrasound if the woman would like to see one.
The above would also help alleviate the confict of interest that comes when abortion providers are the ones performing the pre-abortion counseling.
You know truth seeker, I am not entirely sure. I think she should be offered a sonogram, but she shouldn’t be required to see one ( getting a sonogram isn’t free, we couldn’t demand she pay to see one Just to fit an ideological agenda. I don’t know whether or not the doctor should make the patient go through a brochure. I would really like to leave it up to the individual doctor.
A woman would need to know how far along she is to know which option is best and she should be told what specifically us going to happen to her doing the procedure. But I don’t know what showing her pictures would prove, it isn’t nessesaru to the surgery at hand
It may not be necessary for you Shannon but it also would not inconvenience you much so I figured you would be ok with it cause there is so much evidence and personal testimony that many women are not aware of how fully developed their baby is when they inquire about an abortion and it is important for many women to know this when making their decision wether or not to choose abortion.