Pro-aborts detest ProChoice.com

Pro-aborts are lambasting ProChoice.com because it presents the other options to unplanned pregnancies.

prochoice.com 2.jpg

Since when do pro-aborts own the term? They push one choice, abortion, and we push the 2 other choices, parenthood and adoption. We're 1/3 more pro-choice than they are.

But writes our high strung friend Jessica at Feministing.com...

Before today, I never visited prochoice.com. And I'm sincerely hoping others haven't either. Because the site, rife with rhetoric about 'choice', is actually an anti-choice website that contains gems such as "[abortion is] the death of another less developed human being" and "the dirty little secret is that Abortion providers are interested in their bottom line YOUR MONEY."

The bull**** goes on and on, in all of their sections on adoption, abortion and parenthood. The kicker? There's a little "Under Development" icon of a waving (yes, waving) fetus.

Consider my day ruined.

Is Jessica (nice logo, btw) saying abortion is not the death of another less developed human being?

feministing.jpg What then does abortion do, Jessica?

And these money-making abortion mills are in it for humanity's sake?

Then why aren't they free charities, say, like, pregnancy resource centers? No pregnant mother is ever charged for any service at a prc, but it costs ~$1k from beginning to end to serve every client and baby, way more than most abortions cost.

And Jessica, have you not read about Planned Parenthood's "bottom line" last year - a cool $1 billion? Explain, please?

Pro-abort blogger meanjean at thatmakesmenervous also flipped:

I just picked up this information from Feministing.com and it totally disgusts me: It seems that the website prochoice.com is actually an ANTI-CHOICE site. That's right, by masquerading as a safe place to visit by women who actually are seeking help it promotes its anti-choice stance....

For a lot of women, in different situations, abortion is an option. Its subversive, manipulative people like whoever put up this site that are trying to cheat women out of their own right to choose what they do with their bodies. Just disgusting.

We get it, meanjean is disgusted. But what's "subversive and manipulative" about explaining all the options, meanjean?

And Joshua at Emancipate Yourselves from Mental Slavery fumed:

It's a blatant show the conservative leanings of website [sic] and ignores all of the medical information to jump right into the conservative doctine. It ignores medical procedure and jumps straight to this bull****....

Oh, really, Joshua? ProChoice.com "ignores all of the medical information" and "medical procedure"? Joshua, can you read? Did you not spot this information on "descriptions of abortion options"? Precisely tell me where it erred?7 weeks.jpg

Perhaps Joshua can't read, only write. I find lots of liberals suffer from that strange affliction.

Joshua, would pictures of abortion help? ProChoice.com links to them, too, like the 1 on the right here.


Comments:

good for pro-choice.com, if pro-aborts are pissed they must be doing some good.

Posted by: rosie at June 20, 2008 4:04 PM


Have to agree...when it comes to TRUE choice, the pro-aborts show their true colors...

...If the site is taking flak from these pro-abort radicals..GOOD for the site!!!

Posted by: RSD at June 20, 2008 4:37 PM


You forgot the pro-aborts' other choice: infanticide.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 20, 2008 4:48 PM


Jessica Valenti must have a pretty easy life if THIS sort of thing is what ruins her day.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at June 20, 2008 5:09 PM


To avoid confusion, let's go back to the two original labels from 1973: "Pro-legal abortion" and "Not".

Posted by: Janet at June 20, 2008 5:53 PM


I agree with Cranky Catholic: abortion => infanticide. Those ARE the proabort choices.

Posted by: Patricia at June 20, 2008 5:59 PM


Going over some of the comments from those upset with the site drives home the fact that the rhetoric of many pro-choice bloggers is street tough. In this respect are they not guilty of what they charge pro-lifers with--judgementalism, close-mindedness, and mean-spiritedness, among other un-printable epithets? Walls have been/are being built that make it very difficult to transcend the bunker mentality. But having said that, it is imperative that efforts towards meaningful dialog continue.

Posted by: Jerry at June 20, 2008 6:02 PM


The best way to bring them down is to encourage the infighting. Gotta love it!!!

The prochoice.com website is full of common sense of advice which is why the pro-aborts are SO mad!

Parenthood... Can I really do this?

There are very few parents that don't ask this very question. It might surprise you but, most children are not planned. Is anyone really that ready? All children are different having varying traits many things about your child will be a surprise. Life would be dull if there were no surprises and there would be no real victory without some difficulty.
http://www.prochoice.com/can_i.html

Posted by: Janet at June 20, 2008 6:02 PM


testing

Posted by: testing at June 22, 2008 7:00 AM


Jill, I think the reason the people you wrongly call "pro-aborts" object to this web site is that it is full of lies.

I read three pages:

http://www.prochoice.com/abort_legal.html

http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe.html

http://www.prochoice.com/abort_ru486.html

and I counted no fewer than fourteen lies.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:04 AM


testing

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:05 AM


Jill, the reason the people you wrongly call "pro-aborts" object to the web site is that it is full of lies.

I read three pages--the one about when is abortion legal, the one about is it safe, and the one about RU-486 and I found fourteen lies.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:06 AM


SoMG: I see NOTHING incorrect on the pages you listed.
I think the questions you need to personally seriously consider: Why is it that you do not want women FULLY informed on the risks of abortion? Why is that you personally will not inform women of the risks or abortion, nor will you personally inform the woman of the stage of development of her baby UNLESS SHE ASKS? If you were doing open heart surgery, would you behave in this way professionally? I doubt it very much.
If you proaborts were seriously concerned about making abortion safe and rare, wouldn't you be presenting ALL the options to women? You refer to yourselves as "choicers"? What "choice" to you offer women other than the "choice" to abort their babies using various methods? Are those the only choices you offer?

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:10 AM


Sigh. Patricia, would you like me to go through the three pages for you and list the lies one by one? I will if you ask me to, although by now you should be able to identify them yourself.

You wrote: "Why is it that you do not want women FULLY informed on the risks of abortion?"

Wrong, I do.

You wrote: "Why is that you personally will not inform women of the risks or (sic) abortion, nor will you personally inform the woman of the stage of development of her baby UNLESS SHE ASKS?"

I didn't mean that I don't tell them how far along in pregnancy they are, and a few facts about the fetus, the size or whatever; of course we do that. We just don't tell details about fetal development unless they ask for that information. If they do, we do. Every patient gets asked if she has any questions, does that make you feel better?

You wrote: "If you were doing open heart surgery, would you behave in this way professionally? I doubt it very much."

You're kidding, right? Have you ever tried to get a heart surgeon to tell you technical details about what (s)he is going to do?

One of the things you learn on clinical rotations in med school: most patients don't like it when you tell them technical details about their conditions or procedures. The very large majority of them want to know only: what's going to happen to me and what should I do? Not why or how or any of that stuff. Most docs know this about most patients. There's no malice in it--the fact that they only tell you technical stuff if you ask. The other contributing factor is that everyone is always pressed for time, especially cardiologists, and among cardiologists, especially cardiac surgeons.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 8:27 AM


Patricia, you need to go get some facts on PP. Here's an idea: try getting pregnant and going in to PP and asking questions. The line they all use now is: "There are three ways to handle [or "manage", or "deal with"] a pregnancy. You can give birth and raise the baby yourself. Or you can give birth and put the baby up for adoption. Or you can have an abortion." I'd bet money, if I were a betting man, that if you got pregnant and went into a PP you'd hear that line spoken to you, pretty much word for word.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 8:42 AM


You're kidding, right? Have you ever tried to get a heart surgeon to tell you technical details about what (s)he is going to do?

Yup, the heart specialist went through the entire operation with my mom, dad and myself. Mom was told she had less than 50% chance of surviving the operation. We took it and prayed that God would spare her life.
She lived 15 more years on her repaired heart.

When my daughter had her severely broken arm mended 3 years ago, the orthopedic surgeon spent TWENTY minutes explaining the treatment and follow-up to me. He also met with me after the operation in the recovery room.

Again, you rationalize away - this indicates a profound disrespect for the woman. What, is she too stupid too understand? Or maybe when you get to the part about how you are going to murder the baby, you don't have the stomach to tell the woman - maybe you don't want to have to explain again and again the blood and gore? All the death that one of your patients endures.
Maybe, you don't have the time to inform women about the risks because the truth is, true consent takes time and that would cut into the number of abortions you can do per shift. You just can't seeem to be honest on any level SoMG. Not with yourself nor with your clients.It is your lack of integrity that saddens me so much. You have no desire to seek the truth but hide behind a pack of lies.

I didn't mean that I don't tell them how far along in pregnancy they are, and a few facts about the fetus, the size or whatever; of course we do that. We just don't tell details about fetal development unless they ask for that information.

Why not, SoMG?
And what few facts exactly do you tell them SoMG? Do you tell them what exactly their baby has developed at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 8 weeks, at 10 weeks? Or do you EVEN know or CARE?

Do your patients know when a baby has a beating heart? Do they know when their organs are forming? Do they know when the eyes are developing? Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? Do you have pictures on the wall of fetal development from fertilization to birth?

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:53 AM


Patricia, you need to go get some facts on PP. Here's an idea: try getting pregnant and going in to PP and asking questions. The line they all use now is: "There are three ways to handle [or "manage", or "deal with"] a pregnancy. You can give birth and raise the baby yourself. Or you can give birth and put the baby up for adoption. Or you can have an abortion." I'd bet money, if I were a betting man, that if you got pregnant and went into a PP you'd hear that line spoken to you, pretty much word for word.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 8:42 AM

The last God-forsaken place I'd go on this earth if I were pregnant is PP. I wouldn't patronize them
1. because they kill babies
2. because they kill babies
and
3. because they kill babies

Not to mention the spiritual garbage residing within the four walls of a PP "clinic".

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:57 AM


I'd bet money, if I were a betting man,

at least I know for sure now, that you are in fact, a man!

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 9:04 AM


Another reason it's so hard to get technical details from a cardiologist: cardiology is very hierarchical and that means you get to the top by serving as an underling for a very long time and one nearly universal thing about being a medical underling is that what the patient gets told is not up to you. A good medical underling is the strong, silent type. Your supervisor will tell the patient what the patient needs to know. What if something you tell a patient scares him and he calls the attending in tears yammering about something you told him? As a medical underling, the most favorable outcome for you (speaking strictly from your professional point of view, calling "good" whatever improves your liklihood of advancement within the hierachry) of any and every interaction with a patient is, the patient forgets who you are immediately afterwards and doesn't recognise you if you encounter each other again. This is better than having a patient who likes you. That's why so many docs especially specialists appear so bland. The system selects very strongly for, and also actively promotes, the characteristic of closed-mouthedness.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:09 AM


I'm not suggesting you patronize PP, except insofar as it's necessary in order to spy on them.

Know your enemy, ya know? The problem now is, you keep embarrassing yourself by posting obvious stupid falsehoods (such as "PP denies that there are risks to abortion", or "PP only offers one choice"), which everyone who has ever spent a few minutes learning about PP knows are false, and which therefore embarrasses PP's opponents (you) than it embarrasses PP. Going in and having a personal experience could correct this.

And you do not know I am a man. You only know what I would do if I were a man, and additionally, a betting man. Don't you know the cliche phrase "If I were a betting man....?" which is no longer restricted to men? Female statisticians and epidemiologists use it all the time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:19 AM


SOMG, I asked you a couple of questions on the other thread, but since it's been bumped down, I'm moving it here:

******

Here's what it is: repeat abortion makes me worry that the patient is failing to look after herself well generally.

Why is that, SOMG?

Why is repeat abortion a sign that a woman might not be looking after herself, generally, from your point of view?

I guess it could be argued that that's not really my business. But it bothers me. Everyone is in some sense responsible for every patient's overall health.

I agree, and I think it should be your business to care.

Why are repeat abortions not good for a patient's overall health, in your professional opinion?
Posted by: Bethany at June 20, 2008 8:06 AM

Posted by: Bethany at June 22, 2008 9:33 AM


And you do not know I am a man. You only know what I would do if I were a man, and additionally, a betting man. Don't you know the cliche phrase "If I were a betting man....?" which is no longer restricted to men? Female statisticians and epidemiologists use it all the time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:19 AM


nice try! lol


Going in and having a personal experience could correct this.

Believe me, I have had personal experience with clinics in the US booking abortions! And abortions at 8 months too! Very interesting indeed! I KNOW exactly what they tell women.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 9:36 AM


Diana Lopez, Christin Gilbert, Shantese Butler......

Diana and Christin died after abortions, Shantese was left infertile. AFTER abortions that were "legal". Aren't patients supposed to be told of the risks of every surgical procedure?

Christin Gilbert, btw, was a girl with Downs, and not legally capable of making this decision. And then she died after it at Tiller's abortuary.

Are women REALLY informed of their risks in abortion? I doubt all of them are. And any legislature made law like "Woman's right to Know" that requires the abortionists to tell of the risks are usually fought tooth and nail. Why? Are they afraid they'll lose big $$$$ if a woman changes their mind and says they'll have the baby instead?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 22, 2008 9:40 AM


Liza Minelli was also a victim of abortion. I'm not sure how many she had but they rendered her sterile. When she and hubby Vincent Minelli were trying for a baby in the late 1970's she finally admitted to the press that they had given up.
She was told by doctors she was sterile due to her many abortions. very sad.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 9:52 AM


Please tell more about your personal experience with clinics in the US booking abortions. I am very curious to know details.

What else? Oh yes, Bethany, you wrote: "Why is repeat abortion a sign that a woman might not be looking after herself, generally, from your point of view?

I think this is obvious. Unless she's a weirdo who enjoys or takes pride in her abortion history (there are some, fortunately not many). Repeat abortion is a relatively inconvenient method of birth control which most patients prefer to avoid. For many patients it involves barfing as you come out of twilight and most sensible people prefer to avoid barfing although there are exceptions.

You wrote: "Why are repeat abortions not good for a patient's overall health, in your professional opinion?"

First of all, I'm not sure that's true. The answer to that question is I don't really know. It's much harder to study long term effects of repeat abortion because it's harder to find repeat aborters as subjects unless you go somewhere like Russia in which case it's hard to find control subjects. How do I know that many abortions (20 or 30) won't turn out to increase the risk of breast cancer by some measurable amount? No one to my knowledge has measured a cohort of people like that.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:55 AM


Christian Gilbert (SP?) died of a rare allergic reaction to anaesthesia. Her death was not Dr. Tiller's fault, and it would have been equally likely with any other surgery. Its association with abortion is entirely cooincidental.

You rtls keep bringing that single case up over and over again. That and a case from the 1970s where a damaged abortus survived. The amount of money and effort you have spent trying to tar Tiller makes it unlikely that there are a significant number of undiscovered cases. All you prove in the end is that disasters with him are extremely rare. The same applies to the anti-abortion book Lime 5 which demonstrates by the small number of bad examples it describes the same thing about the entire US abortion industry.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 10:11 AM


Also, Liz, you wrote: "And any legislature made law like "Woman's right to Know" that requires the abortionists to tell of the risks are usually fought tooth and nail. Why? Are they afraid they'll lose big $$$$ if a woman changes their mind and says they'll have the baby instead?"

Most of 'em are on salary now. It makes no difference to them which way the patient decides. As it should be.

Most of the time when abortion docs object to bills with names like "Women's Right to Know" it is because the bill would require them to lie to their patients about something involving health, which is malpractice. Any bill which requires abortion docs to warn of an increase in the risk of breast cancer forces them to commit medical malpractice. I would say any bill which requires an abortion doc to mention breast cancer at all is forcing the doc at least to do something inappropriate and maybe also to commit malpractice. The non-association with breast-cancer is proven fact, proven more thoroughly than most proven medical facts your doc relies on or tells you. It is inappropriate for a doctor advising a patient who is deciding whether or not to abort a pregnancy even to put the thought of breast-cancer in her mind. The word "cancer" does things to people and doctors are responsible for not using it where it is not appropriate. On some level it might cause her decision to be affected by a baseless fear.

It's also one of the lies at prochoice.com.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 10:30 AM


From a pro-choice perspective, the problem I have with it and other pro-life websites is that it copies, nearly exactly, the domain name of another ACTUALLY pro-choice website (perhaps changing the .org to a .com in the meantime - a common mistake people come across when typing in a url) thus attempting to deceive people.

Same thing with CPCs. They copy the name of an actual clinic not too far away, change maybe one word, enough that a person could still be tricked into going to the wrong place.

I see nothing wrong with pro-lifers pushing their message and their agenda. But this method is downright deceptive and unethical. You should never have to lie to someone in order to get them to change their mind about abortion.

Here's a list of pro-life websites masquerading as pro-choice ones.

Posted by: Edyt at June 22, 2008 12:00 PM


Please tell more about your personal experience with clinics in the US booking abortions. I am very curious to know details.

Nope. I won't be divulging ANY details on a public internet site.

Most of the time when abortion docs object to bills with names like "Women's Right to Know" it is because the bill would require them to lie to their patients about something involving health, which is malpractice.

Then you commit malpractice every day. You deliberately ommit information about the procedure.

again read my previous post:
And what few facts exactly do you tell them SoMG? Do you tell them what exactly their baby has developed at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 8 weeks, at 10 weeks? Or do you EVEN know or CARE?

Do your patients know when a baby has a beating heart? Do they know when their organs are forming? Do they know when the eyes are developing? Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? Do you have pictures on the wall of fetal development from fertilization to birth?


Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 12:32 PM


Oh Patricia, I don't mean traceable details like what company you worked for or anything like that. I mean, what did you do? What was the nature of your contact with abortion patients? With the docs? What did you learn about abortion, and how did you learn it? How long did the job last? When was it? What region of the country was it in?

You wrote: "You deliberately ommit [sic] information about the procedure."

Nothing relevant to the patient's health, no.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 1:23 PM


Again SoMG:
And what few facts exactly do you tell them SoMG? Do you tell them what exactly their baby has developed at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 8 weeks, at 10 weeks? Or do you EVEN know or CARE?

Do your patients know when a baby has a beating heart? Do they know when their organs are forming? Do they know when the eyes are developing? Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? Do you have pictures on the wall of fetal development from fertilization to birth?


Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 12:32 PM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 2:12 PM


Oh Patricia, I don't mean traceable details like what company you worked for or anything like that. I mean, what did you do? What was the nature of your contact with abortion patients? With the docs? What did you learn about abortion, and how did you learn it? How long did the job last? When was it? What region of the country was it in?

Nope. No details can be supplied what-so-ever.
Except to say that abortionists and their staff routinely lie to women and are VERY ACCOMODATING when it comes to arranging abortions. These facts are now well known and documented by many prolife workers and researchers, throughout the world. You therefore, do not need to hear about my experiences.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 2:16 PM


Patricia, have you ever heard an abortion doc lie to a patient?

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 3:00 PM


Silly Patricia, "blobs of tissue" don't have eyes, or organs, or fingers and stuff like that!

If what SoMG said about educating patients is true, then NO post-abortive woman would refer to their abortion as removing "just a clump of cells; a blob of tissue", and they do it OFTEN. If anyone thinks women are ignorant of the practice abortion/unworthy of learning about it in detail, it's because practicinners ALLOW them to be, and WANT them to be to facilitate their practice, because it does.

Posted by: xalisae at June 22, 2008 3:03 PM


Or a member of an abortion doc's staff?

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 3:04 PM


xalisae, have you personally ever heard a post-abortive woman or an abortion clinic worker refer to a fetus as a "blob of tissue" or a "clump of cells"?

If yes, and if it was a post-abortive woman, when was her abortion?

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 3:09 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "Do you tell them what exactly their baby has developed at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 8 weeks, at 10 weeks? "

Yes, when they ask.

You asked "Or do you EVEN know...?"

Is that a serious question? I have taught that stuff.

You wrote: "Do your patients know when a baby [sic] has a beating heart? Do they know when their organs are forming? Do they know when the eyes are developing?"

Some do, some don't.

You asked "Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? "

You mean like the little doll the doctor played by (the great) Kenneth Mars showed Laura Dern in CITIZEN RUTH? No.

"Do you have pictures on the wall of fetal development from fertilization to birth?"

No. It is not my job to discourage the patient from having an abortion or to make her feel guilty about it. How much she wants to know about her fetus is up to her.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 3:27 PM


SoMG: we don't have to provide the proof. There is proof galore in the many testomonies on many many websites and at many prolife rallies and marches throughout the world.
As I suggested to YOU before: I challenge YOU to go to a prolife march or gathering, esp. the one in Washington and talk directly to the women who have had these experiences - who have been lied to, told to shut up, and not given the information they needed or requested. You pretend scepticism but it's just a front. You know darn well what you will and will not tell women.
As I note you won't answer MY questions about YOUR information disclosure to patients:

And what few facts exactly do you tell them SoMG? Do you tell them what exactly their baby has developed at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 8 weeks, at 10 weeks? Or do you EVEN know or CARE?

Do your patients know when a baby has a beating heart? Do they know when their organs are forming? Do they know when the eyes are developing? Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? Do you have pictures on the wall of fetal development from fertilization to birth?


Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 12:32 PM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 2:12 PM

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 3:35 PM


SoMG says: "Jill, I think the reason the people you wrongly call "pro-aborts"..... as if there was something horribly derogatory about saying that you support the legal status of abortion... and yet so-called "prochoicers" do exactly that.

Linguistic revisionists would be another great label for "pro-choicers", since they try to claim superior authority and knowledge to well known dicitonary publishing companies. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm reluctant to burn my dictionary and slavishly follow the linguistic proclamatons of a group who support killing healthy babies for "elective" reasons.

In conclusion, here is the ACTUAL, TRUE MEANING of the term "pro-abortion":

pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at June 22, 2008 3:42 PM


Patricia, I have answered your questions. Post of 3:27.

It is not my job to tell a patient anything except what she needs to know for HER health. Not her fetus's health. Unless she asks.

You wrote: " We don't have to provide the proof. There is proof galore [that abortion docs lie to patients] in the many testomonies [sic] on many many websites and at many prolife rallies and marches throughout the world."

One difficulty is to distinguish the true testimonies from the lies. There is no doubt that there are lies in some of these testimonies. Many right-to-lifers are quite open about the fact that saving "babies" is more important to them than telling the truth. If some of them weren't posting false testimonies one would have to wonder why not. One can only guess which testimonies are true.

By the same token, Patricia, YOUR testimony would not constitute proof of anything. I have already caught you in two ridiculous lies about PP.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:08 PM


Go to any mainstream website (YouTube, MySpace, etc.,) SoMG, and you'll find dozens, perhaps hundreds of post-abortive women who say just that. I, however, have wasted enough of my time there to know, and I never will again. Have I talked personally to clinic staff? Only you, handsome, and although you claim to be forthcoming here, these women are getting these terms and ideas from SOMEWHERE, and I think I came across some wikiquotes somewhere from doctors who said that they told as much to their patients, yet acknowledged in private the fetus' humanity.

Also, what exactly about illustrating the growth patterns of an embryo/fetus would be discouraging a woman from an abortion? If they already know what it is and will become, and abortion is, as you yourself have called it, "justifiable homicide", why would a little fun facts deter them?

Posted by: xalisae at June 22, 2008 4:22 PM


Doyle Chadwick, I disagree with the definitions you posted. They are at least obsolete.

To me "pro-abortion" indicates a desire to increase the number of abortions. A desire merely to keep abortion legal is called "pro-choice".

I do not know anyone who is pro-abortion. In fact I don't think I know OF anyone who desires to increase the number of abortions done. Even the Chinese government which forces its citizens to have abortions does so in order to lower the population, not in order to increase the abortion rate. If they were pro-abortion they would force people to get pregnant AND have abortions.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:22 PM


Edyt,
I wish someone had LIED to me and told me it was a baby. I was told it was a clump of cells. So they lied.
But wait you said you should never have to lie to someone in order to get them to change their mind about abortion.

Now I am all confused.....

SoMG,
You lie by omission.

Posted by: Carla at June 22, 2008 4:23 PM


xalisae, I think that very few abortion patients would be deterred from getting their abortions by information about fetal development.

It's just not my job to give them information they don't ask for, unless it's important for their health.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:28 PM


Carla, who told you it was just a clump of cells?

When was this? (I know you told me but I forgot).

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:30 PM


1990
The staff at Meadowbrook Clinic. I had to sit through a video which showed a bunch of red circles in a clump, like a bunch of red grapes.
Which leads me to this......do you think all of us were exactly at the same point of fetal development?? I was told I was 8 weeks along but never had an ultrasound. I figured out my dates many years later and I was almost 11 weeks. That baby had arms, hands, fingers, toes, a head, a face. How do I know?? I miscarried another baby in my hand at 11 weeks.

Posted by: Carla at June 22, 2008 4:33 PM


Carla, how did they know (or claim to know) that you were 8 weeks along, given that there was no ultrasound?

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:42 PM


And if it makes you feel any better, your fetus also has arms, hands, fingers, toes, and a face at eight weeks.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 4:45 PM


Carla: 4:33:
1990
The staff at Meadowbrook Clinic. I had to sit through a video which showed a bunch of red circles in a clump, like a bunch of red grapes.
Which leads me to this......do you think all of us were exactly at the same point of fetal development?? I was told I was 8 weeks along but never had an ultrasound. I figured out my dates many years later and I was almost 11 weeks. That baby had arms, hands, fingers, toes, a head, a face. How do I know?? I miscarried another baby in my hand at 11 weeks.

I'm sorry about your miscarriage.

THAT CLINIC REALLY STINKS!

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 4:47 PM


Doyle said: To me "pro-abortion" indicates a desire to increase the number of abortions. A desire merely to keep abortion legal is called "pro-choice".

SoMG said: Doyle Chadwick, I disagree with the definitions you posted. They are at least obsolete.

I do not know anyone who is pro-abortion. In fact I don't think I know OF anyone who desires to increase the number of abortions done. Even the Chinese government which forces its citizens to have abortions does so in order to lower the population, not in order to increase the abortion rate. If they were pro-abortion they would force people to get pregnant AND have abortions.

You know Doyle isn't talking rates, he's talking numbers. If abortions stopped today, the numbers would drop to zero. You don't know ANYONE, including yourself who might not want that to happen?

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 4:58 PM


Oh dear, Janet, you've really garbled my post. Go back and read it again.

I said I don't know anyone who desires to INCREASE the number of abortions. In other words, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.

Most people who read what I write tell me I write pretty clearly.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:03 PM


Maybe I'm not most people.....I read what you wrote and my response makes sense to me.

You're saying you want to maintain the status quo (the current rate). In REAL numbers, that an increase, as I said.

You can call that pro-choice if you want, but not in my book.


Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 5:09 PM


So how, praytell, would showing fetal growth and development charts deter women from abortion, SoMG?

Posted by: xalisae at June 22, 2008 5:12 PM


Also, Janet, it's not yet clear to me that the Meadowbrook Clinic did anything wrong.

It depends on WHY they thought Carla was only eight weeks along when she was eleven weeks.

Since no ultrasound was done, the only way I can think of that they could have calculated fetal age was from the date of Carla's last reported menstrual period. They would be very unlikely to get this wrong or make an arithmetic error. Carla, could you have given them the wrong date?

It is also odd that they would do an abortion at all if they thought she was only eight weeks along. Standard procedure for a surgical abortion is to wait until twelve weeks so the fetus is big enough to see easily so you know you didn't leave it behind. Normally you would only do an abortion at (what you thought was) eight weeks if it were a medical abortion.

Something is definitely wrong, but it's hard to say whether it's the Meadowbrook Clinic or Carla.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:15 PM


SoMG,
I have no idea how they claimed to know. I can only guess that they had that little wheelie thing that my doctor used to determine due dates?? I am only guessing at that.

Yes, a baby at 8 weeks has arms, hands, fingers, toes....I know. So does a baby at 6 weeks.

I should say I KNOW THAT NOW!!!

Posted by: Carla at June 22, 2008 5:19 PM


No, Janet, I did not say I wanted to maintain the current rate. I did not say anything about what I want the current rate to be. I said that pro-abortion means a desire to increase the rate and that pro-choice means a desire to keep abortion legal. I also said I do not know of anyone who is pro-abortion. I think that's pretty much all I said.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:19 PM


Thanks Janet. :)
Someday I will be standing outside that clinic and hoping to talk to someone walking in.

Posted by: Carla at June 22, 2008 5:21 PM


SoMG:5:15:

They probably didn't have medical abortions 18 years ago.
Maybe the person who talked to her was incompetent - didn't know how to read the little round fetal age calculator thingy, or just didn't care? Hmmmm.....

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 5:24 PM


Carla, the wheelie thing would only give them the wrong result if they had the wrong date for your last menstrual period or if they were using it incorrectly which is extremely unlikely.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:25 PM


Gosh, SoMG what are you saying?? Do you think they deceived me? Was I treated badly? Did they lie??
The wheelie thing could have been wrong? And if there was no wheelie thing well then how in the world............

GASP!!!

Posted by: Carla at June 22, 2008 5:28 PM


A desire merely to keep abortion legal is called "pro-choice".
So then you should have no problems with the prochoice site since it is all about choice.

You asked "Do you have fetal models in your office or waiting room? "

You mean like the little doll the doctor played by (the great) Kenneth Mars showed Laura Dern in CITIZEN RUTH? No.


This is about THE most ignorant and stupid thing you've EVER written on this site SoMG. I am SOOO disappointed. Have you EVER even seen fetal models showing the development of the unborn child? Please, and you claim to be a doctor, albeit one who murders his patients.

You asked "Or do you EVEN know...?"

Is that a serious question? I have taught that stuff.

But you can't bring yourself to a woman about WHAT exactly she is doing. How is this informed consent SoMG? How can you rationalize what you are doing to women and their babies.

It is not my job to discourage the patient from having an abortion

Oh, so you REALLY don't want abortions safe and rare. You just want abortions! PERIOD. Thanks for the clarification SoMG! It's what I've claimed about you all along - and you are a PROABORT!

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 5:28 PM


xalisae, you wrote: "So how, praytell, would showing fetal growth and development charts deter women from abortion?"

You didn't read my post. They wouldn't.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:32 PM


No, Janet, I did not say I wanted to maintain the current rate. I did not say anything about what I want the current rate to be. I said that pro-abortion means a desire to increase the rate and that pro-choice means a desire to keep abortion legal. I also said I do not know of anyone who is pro-abortion. I think that's pretty much all I said.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:19 PM


You spend SO much time rationalizing things SoMG, I wonder how you have time for anything else in your life. It must be truly exhausting. Do you have a wife?
I personally do not know anyone who lives life this literally!

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 5:35 PM


SoMG 4:22: To me "pro-abortion" indicates a desire to increase the number of abortions. A desire merely to keep abortion legal is called "pro-choice".

SoMG: 5:19: I said that pro-abortion means a desire to increase the rate and that pro-choice means a desire to keep abortion legal.

In fact I don't think I know OF anyone who desires to increase the number of abortions done.

You are going 'round and 'round and you're changing your tune...... How about using yourself as an example of someone who wants to increase the number of abortions done. The number goes up everyday. (Or are you retiring today and REALLY don't care?). If that doesn't make sense to you, we must be talking apples and oranges. I'm finished on that point.

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 5:37 PM


"Since when do pro-aborts own the term? They push one choice, abortion, and we push the 2 other choices, parenthood and adoption. We're 1/3 more pro-choice than they are."

HA, good point Jill. We're more pro-choice then they are...

Posted by: jasper at June 22, 2008 5:37 PM


xalisae, you wrote: "So how, praytell, would showing fetal growth and development charts deter women from abortion?"

You didn't read my post. They wouldn't.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:32 PM

Then why not show them? It's informed consent. Don't tell me you don't want to upset the woman. My mother cried when she saw how they were going to cut her sternum open. But she was a big girl. She dealt with it.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 5:41 PM


Well for one thing it takes time. I only get about five minutes to talk to a patient.

And it is not part of "informed consent".

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:48 PM


And Jill, I don't think anyone in the USA "pushes" abortion. I know for a fact that PP does not.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:52 PM


Janet, you wrote: "You are going 'round and 'round and you're changing your tune......"

No, you're just muddleheaded.

You wrote: "How about using yourself as an example of someone who wants to increase the number of abortions done. "

No I don't. I put considerable energy into preventing abortions. With some success--very few patients come back for a second abortion after our contraceptive counselling.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:55 PM


Jill, I know of a case where a volunteer counsellor was dismissed from PP because they determined that her counselling style was subtly biased in favor of abortion. (She would smile when a client mentioned abortion and frown when she mentioned childbirth.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:58 PM


Well for one thing it takes time. I only get about five minutes to talk to a patient.

And it is not part of "informed consent".

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:48 PM

YOU SPEND FIVE MINUTES TALKING TO A PATIENT!
Do you honestly believe this is right? Good grief SoMG! And you call this quality medicine?

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 6:00 PM


Patricia, it's enough for most patients. The average office visit to a doc in the USA takes seven minutes.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 6:04 PM


No I don't. I put considerable energy into preventing abortions. With some success--very few patients come back for a second abortion after our contraceptive counselling.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 5:55 PM

No I don't. I put considerable energy into preventing abortions. and rationalizing them correction and emphasis mine

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 6:05 PM


That is (I better write carefully since some demonstrated muddleheads are reading), the average office visit to a doc in the USA includes of seven minutes of direct interaction between the patient and the doc. Of course, the office visit takes longer because of waiting time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 6:07 PM


Patricia, it's enough for most patients. The average office visit to a doc in the USA takes seven minutes.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 6:04 PM

Funny thing. I wish I spent just 7 minutes with my doctor. He's great! He books 20 min and 30 min appointments.
For a such a major decision to have the baby or kill it, one would think you would spend more than 5 minutes with the woman? Such a caring attitude SoMG? Maybe if you weren't in such hurry to get through so many women, you would spend more time on quality appointments eh? Or would that cut into your profit line or base salary?

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 6:10 PM


SoMG:5:55: Janet, you wrote: "You are going 'round and 'round and you're changing your tune......

No, you're just muddleheaded.

You wrote: "How about using yourself as an example of someone who wants to increase the number of abortions done. "

No I don't. I put considerable energy into preventing abortions. With some success--very few patients come back for a second abortion after our contraceptive counselling.

I LOVE that word muddleheaded! Feel free to use these great synonyms too!

Adj. 1. muddleheaded - stupid and confused; "blathering like the addlepated nincompoop that you are"; "a confused puddingheaded, muddleheaded fellow"- Isaac Sterne

Syn: addlebrained, addlepated, puddingheaded


Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 6:40 PM


Oh dear, Janet, you've really garbled my post. Go back and read it again.

Guys, I still think SoMG is a woman. A man would not write "Oh dear".

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2008 6:44 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "For a such a major decision to have the baby or kill it, one would think you would spend more than 5 minutes with the woman?"

The very large majority of patients have already decided on their abortions by the time I see them. Much as rtls like to write about women who are uncertain, or ambivalent, or on the brink of changing their minds and converting to right-to-life Christianity, this is mostly a myth, I'm afraid. For the most part women enter abortion clinics because they want abortions. Conversion-on-the-clinic-threshold stories are, let's say, charitably, overhyped (a less charitable person would say, invented) by rtls because they cause readers to donate more money to them.

Every one of my patients, by the way, asks explicitly for an abortion. It is our policy to begin every first meeting with every patient with the question "What can I do for you?" (after asking the patient's name and shaking hands and saying how do you do.) The patient is always the one who mentions abortion first. We believe this helps them take responsibility for their decisions.

You wrote: "Maybe if you weren't in such hurry to get through so many women, you would spend more time on quality appointments eh?"

Yep, pretty much everyone desires to decrease their workload in these days of managed care. Even private-practice people are overworked because by overworking they make more money which is expected and demanded of them by their partners. The complaint that extremely high caseloads damage the quality of care is currently universal or near-universal in medicine in the USA. Only high-end people with rich patients who carry generous insurance policies, and some academics, are able to spend as much time with each patient as they want and need. I expect this problem to get worse before it gets better if it ever does get better. If you can't deal with conflicting demands like this, then medicine is not for you.

You wrote: " He [my doc] books 20 min and 30 min appointments."

What kind of insurance do you have?

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 6:51 PM


This was the results of the autopsy of Christin Gilbert:

According to the ten-page document released August 24, 19-year old Christin A. Gilbert “died as a result of complication of a therapeutic abortion. Most likely the mechanism of death is sepsis.”

The 911 caller (who was very evasive and asked that the ambulance not use its sirens) said that the patient was complaining of pain in the belly button.

You may be mixing Christin Gilbert up with Laura Hope Smith, who was a victim of abortion in Massachusetts, not Kansas.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 22, 2008 7:02 PM


Liz, thanks for the correction, but it doesn't matter because it's only one case.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:10 PM


@Patricia: most of my doctor appts. before and after my breast reduction (which was apparently very major surgery- go figs) two year ago were never more than 5 minutes. They were 15 min. exams but the 10 other minutes were for waiting around for the doc to get there.

Every single of one of my physicals I've ever had maybe last 15 minutes- and they're usually 1 hr. appts, most of the time spent waiting as the doctor rushed between exam rooms.

Posted by: Rae at June 22, 2008 7:23 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "you should have no problems with the prochoice site since it is all about choice."

First of all, that's not entirely true--the site says that women should fight to ban RU486, which is against at least one form of choice.

Secondly, my objection to the site is not that it presents three choices, but that it is full of lies. I have counted the lies on the three pages I linked to in a previous post and I get between fourteen and eighteen depending on how I count them. (Sometimes it is hard to decide whether or not a particular sentence is a lie, like when they say that having to return to the clinic after a medical abortion for a follow-up ultrasound to make sure the uterus is empty "humiliates and degrades women". Is that a lie, or just goofy?)

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:37 PM


SoMG: I live in Canada so we have state funded health care.
Things are changing rapidly in Canada these days but my doctor is very different from many docs today and always has been. For one thing he's prolife, for another the bulk of his patients used NFP, had home births and breastfed their babies for at least a year. I was able to call him at HOME one time when my son was very very sick and the doctor on call obviously didn't know what the hell he was doing. He prescribed the antibiotics my son urgently required and we got them at 1 am.

You Americans talk about how terrible our state run medical care is but for some people it has worked very well. The truth is all the doctors I've ever had have been like my current doctor. The only appointments I've ever had that have been 5 or 7 minutes long are those where the kids got vaccinated and that was it. The doctor did those too!

7 minutes with a patient is a crime. This would be considered unethical by my doctor's standards.
Rae: does the doctor bill for 1 hr appmts even though you only see him for 15 minutes.
Even my prenatals were long appointments 30 minutes. This time was spent entirely with the doctor who weighed me, measured my fundus, listened to the baby etc. I only had ultrasounds unless there was a problem.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 7:40 PM


First of all, that's not entirely true--the site says that women should fight to ban RU486, which is against at least one form of choice.

It's not a good medical choice if it harms women, now is it SoMG! After all abortion should be safe, yes? (for the woman, at the very least)

I see no lies, only good solid evidence that presents women with the truth about what abortion does to women.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 7:44 PM


What drew you to the abortion industry, SoMG?

Posted by: carder at June 22, 2008 7:46 PM


Patricia, it sounds like you have a terrific doc (for you). In the USA most of the stories you hear about medicine in Canada are about long waiting times (sometimes more than a year) for specialized care. These stories are repeated and probably exaggerated by opponents of the effort to nationalize medicine in the USA.

Yep, it's shocking, but it's also a fact: the average office visit to a doc in the USA includes just seven minutes of doc-patient time including examinations and conversation. Less if it's a surgeon.

I go back and forth on the question of whether or not to nationalize medicine. It could end up like Medicare, or the Veteran's Administration, which are both government-run systems that successfully provide excellent care. On the other hand, it could end up like England. On the third hand, our current system is unacceptable in many ways and rapidly becoming more so. It's a tough call, that's for sure.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 7:57 PM


@Patricia: Yep, they billed me the full hour. Of course, I'm still on my dad's insurance, so I never had to pay anything but yeah- it sucks.

And my doctors were never really good doctors...they never really tried to find out what is wrong with me because of my *cough* messed up cycle *cough* and only prescribed me BC pills (which I take because I don't have the time to deal with looking for a specialist to have a gander), all they do is perform the same damn blood panels to check my testosterone, thyroid, and estrogen levels to check for PCOS.

They never do a pelvic to feel for fibroids, nor have they done an ultrasound to check for ovarian cysts. I've asked for both of these, and every time they just waved me off like I'm stupid and said they aren't necessary, if something is wrong it'll show up in the bloodwork. However, I've had normal bloodwork every friggin' time so my doctors have always just shrugged and said, "Eh- we'll just give you the BC pill because that seems to help...but apparently there is nothing wrong with you."

So I take my pill- and I wish I didn't have to because it's expensive and barely covered on my insurance (it's a $50 pack of pills each month and I have to pay the $20 copay each month- which is more than my FAR more expensive medications like my steroids for psoriasis and my antidepressants).

And btw- my doctor usually doesn't do half the exam- it's usually a nurse who weighs me, checks my height, blood pressure, medical history etc- she enters it into a computer and then the doctor comes in like 15min after the nurse leaves to check my heart, lungs and feel my abdomen and chest for unusual stuff and then I'm told, "g'bye" and another nurse comes in to take my blood.

Posted by: Rae at June 22, 2008 8:20 PM


Patricia, RU486 only harms women extremely rarely (patient death rate currently stands at fewer than one per hundred thousand RU486 abortions).

No lies in prochoice.com? OK. I count three types of lies: lies of commission, in which the liar states something he knows is false; lies of implication, in which the liar states something that strongly implies something the liar knows is false (I count these as only one-half each because the falsehood is only strongly implied, not stated directly.); and lies of omission in which the liar deliberately gives a false factual impression by leaving something out.

We start with http://www.prochoice.com/abort_legal.html

Which begins "Realize that when those who say they support women and 'their right to choose' are not really doing that."

This is a lie of commission. (Well actually it's non-grammatical--the author needs to remove the word "when". But we're not penalizing for grammar or spelling.) Total = 1.

Continuing: "The dirty little secret is that Abortion providers are interested in their bottom line YOUR MONEY."

Well it's certainly true that independent abortion providers like all independent health care providers and for that matter all businesses need your money and are concerned about their bottom line. But to call this a "dirty little secret" is a lie, actually two lies because there is nothing dirty (underhanded) about abortion providers charging fees AND there is nothing secret about it but I will be generous and only count the phrase "dirty little secret" as one lie. Total = 2. However the sentence clearly implies that docs who do abortions are more interested in money than docs who do not and that is a lie of implication. I think I have mentioned before that the greediest specialty, the one most desired by the docs who say that money is most important to them, is dermatology, because there is still a national shortage and you can bill per procedure and derm procedures are very quick so you can bill for a lot of them. Also, malpractice rates are relatively low. Next come surgical specialists in anatomically complicated organs and organ systems--ophthalmologists, surgeons of the vocal apparatus, neurosurgeons (although ultra-high malpractice insurance rates deter greedy docs from neurosurgery). Ob/Gyn (except for high-risk ob/gyn), family practice, adolescent medicine--these are the specialities that do abortions and they are not high on the list of specialities desired by greedy docs. Total lies so far =2.5. There's more silliness in the rest of this page, for instance, "Any elective medical procedure that even has the remotest possibility of complication should not be left up to a minor to decide yes or no. " Really? Does that include giving birth to a live baby? But no outright lies. Total for this page stands at 2.5.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 8:41 PM


SoMG, never stop doing what you do! You're awesome for supporting a women's right to choose!

Posted by: Jess at June 22, 2008 8:56 PM


Now we turn to http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe.html

It starts: "Abortion... When is it safe?
No medical procedure is 100% safe so the answer is never Completely, and less safe than many procedures. "

OK. "Many procedures" means things like wart removal, or surgical treatment of an ingrown thumbnail, or drawing a small amount of blood. But we'll pass this.

The next thing it says is "Risks are:" followed by a list of complications which we will consider one by one.

"Severe bleeding". To say that this is a risk of abortion without adding that it is quite rare is a lie of omission. Bleeding is not so rare but severe bleeding is. Because the site is clearly addressed to pregnant women in the process of deciding whether to grow or abort their pregnancies, it is also a lie of omission to fail to state that severe bleeding also occurs as a complication of childbirth. That's two lies of omission, which bring the total count to 4.5.

"Having problems in future pregnancy." Difficult to measure and rare. I count one lie of omission. Total = 5.5.

"Becoming sterile". Very rare. One lie of omission. Total = 6.5.

"Needing a hysterectomy". Extremely rare and also sometimes happens as a consequence of childbirth. Two lies of omission. Total = 8.5.

"Not completing the job". It's not rare to leave SOME fetal or placental or endometrial tissue behind. BUT almost all cases of this are harmless. They come out in the next menses. You're only in trouble if they become a bed for infection. Since the authors did not say this was "severe" or anything like that I'll pass this. Total remains at 8.5.

"Severe infection". Again, the use of the word "severe" demands the use of the word "rarely" as well. Failure to use which is a lie of omission. Total = 9.5.

"Developing breast cancer." A lie of commission this time. Total = 10.5.

"Psychological issues". The vagueness of the word "issues" prevents this from being a lie. If the authors had said "psychological ILLNESS" it would be a lie. But they didn't. Total remains 10.5.

"Death". Extremely rare (less than 1 per hundred thousand abortions) AND more likely in childbirth than in abortion. Two lies of omission. Total = 12.5.

Then we get a bunch of examples and references. Let's skip to nearly the bottom, where we see: "After reading the above you should have a clear understanding that abortion is an unique procedure, in that, it is the only 'medical procedure' that gives special protection to those who perform it. Making those who profit from abortion safer and legally protected from the problems documented above."

The suggestion that docs who do abortions enjoy special legal protections which docs who do not do abortions do not enjoy is a lie of commission. Abortion docs get sued, and sometimes lose in court, just like everybody. Total = 13.5.

Next it says "This clearly defines for all, what it means to keep abortion safe and legal."

This means nothing. Total remains 13.5. But then we get this: "As an industry, it operates with very little regulation or scrutiny ..." This sentence contains two lies of commission: the lie that abortion "operates with very little regulation" which I take to mean that it is less regulated than other specialities or procedures, and the additional lie that abortion providers receive less scrutiny than doctors who do not do abortions. The opposite is true: in addition to appropriate scrutiny by legitimate watchdogs docs who do abortions are scrutinized by right-to-life spys who come in pretending to be patients but hoping to catch you failing to tell them something you're supposed to tell all patients or whatever. So that sentence contains two more lies. Total = 15.5.

A little further down it says "If you like to be operated on in 3rd world countries
but pay a civilized world price, this is for you. " The clear implication is that abortion providers are less modern, and generally have lower standards, than other specialialists. This is a lie of implication which counts as one half. Total = 16.

Next it says: "Unlike bias [sic] industry claims, (that abortion is safer than child birth,) according to a (non politically motivated) study in finland, a woman is 4 times more likely to die within 1 year of an abortion than childbirth."

First, there's the clear implication that abortion is not safer than childbirth, which is a lie of implication. There's also the lie (of commission) that industry claims to the contrary are biased. Finally, to cite this Finnish study without mentioning that it counted deaths from causes that obviously have nothing to do with abortion (such as car accidents) is a lie of omission. The quoted sentence thus yields one of each type of lie: one of implication, one of commission, and one of omission. This adds 2.5 to the running total bringing it up to 18.5. That's all (!) for this page.


Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:13 PM


@Patricia: Yep, they billed me the full hour. Of course, I'm still on my dad's insurance, so I never had to pay anything but yeah- it sucks.

And my doctors were never really good doctors...they never really tried to find out what is wrong with me because of my *cough* messed up cycle *cough* and only prescribed me BC pills (which I take because I don't have the time to deal with looking for a specialist to have a gander), all they do is perform the same damn blood panels to check my testosterone, thyroid, and estrogen levels to check for PCOS.

Rae: I'm sorry about that. You deserve better health care!
Wait times can be long and 5 million people have no doctor in Canada.But we have many clinics and outpatient services. My doctor is an hour drive away. When he retires I have no idea what I will do.

As soon as insurance is involved, it becomes much more expensive. We've seen this with dental care which is not covered by the government. But everyone's employer now has some sort of dental plan. Because I am not covered, my dentist - a Catholic man, charges me rock bottom rates! I can get excellent care for my self for under $100. For that I get two xrays, an examination a flouride treatment and a complete cleaning & polishing! I've never had a tooth filled (good genes!)so I'm very lucky! But normally a dentist would bill a company about $200 for the exam because those are the rates expected.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 9:25 PM


First, there's the clear implication that abortion is not safer than childbirth, which is a lie of implication.

You KNOW this is not true: childbirth IS safer than abortion and you know why the stats given by abortionists are primed to show otherwise. Therefore, I will not bother to explain this. We've had this discussion before. It's tiring rehashing the same lies.
Try to learn SoMG. Try to be open-minded.
Have a nice evening.

Posted by: Patricia at June 22, 2008 9:28 PM


Now we come to http://www.prochoice.com/abort_ru486.html

It begins: "Warning! You have the right to know that this drug has an unsafe record and bad side effects."

"Unsafe record" is a lie of commission. "Bad side effects" without the phrase "extremely rare" is a lie of omission. Total = 20.5. Onward: "Unlike the FDA's scientific approval of all other drugs, this drug was approved for use by women based on it's profit potential for the abortion industry and political pressure from their cult like followers." This is a tricky one, because the FDA's approval process for RU486 was not entirely squeaky-clean. I particularly object to their use of Section H, a special fast-track to approval which was written into law in order to get AIDS drugs to dying patients quickly. In recognition of this irregularity I will not count this sentence as containing any lies ALTHOUGH it is silly to say that FDA approval was driven by the profit motive because medical abortion is actually less profitable than surgical abortion because it requires two office visits rather than one. Also, the main driving force for the irregularities in the approval process was the President's desire to make history. Finally it must also be noted that at the time of FDA approval, RU486 had an impressive use-record abroad of more than half a million RU486 abortions. Everybody in the world knew that it was safe and effective. It's not as if anyone were put at risk by FDA approval. Anyway, this sentence is clean, Total remains at 20.5. But then we get this: "Many cases of abortion related deaths are aggressively disputed, ..." This is a lie of commission because there aren't "many cases of abortion related deaths", disputed or not. There are very few. Total = 21.5. The sentence concludes "...those who report them are subject to intimidation." Has anyone ever heard of an abortion doc hiring legbreakers to intimidate the family of a patient who died under his care? Or to intimidate a reporter who wrote about the case? I haven't but maybe it happens somewhere. I'll pass this. Total remains 21.5.

Then there's a paragraph that yammers about the fact that after a medical abortion you have to return to the clinic for a follow-up ultrasound to make sure the uterus is really empty. The authors say this "degrades and humiliates women". Is that a lie or just goofy? Let's be generous and say goofy. Total remains 21.5.

The paragraph ends with "Worst of all this could be given to you with out you knowing. For this reason alone, women should fight to ban it's [sic] use." Not really a "pro-choice" sentiment, is it, this idea that we should ban a product because it can be used to commit a crime. Should we apply this principle to handguns too? But while this is a bad idea it's not a lie. In fact I find no more lies in these three pages of the document. FINAL TOTAL = 21.5 LIES.

Besides the lies the entire site is riddled with grammatical errors and spelling errors. Unless they are deliberately trying to give the impression of illiteracy, the authors should hire a proofreader.

Two of the cases described at the end of the RU486 page involve patients with undetected tubal pregnancies which ruptured after or during their RU486 abortions. These cases are reasons to use methotrexate, rather than RU486, for medical abortions. Methotrexate would have killed the ectopic pregnancies and might well have prevented the ruptures.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:47 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "childbirth IS safer than abortion..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFL

You wrote "... and you know why the stats given by abortionists are primed to show otherwise. "

Any abortion provider who knowingly reported false data to the CDC or to his state government would be charged with fraud and maybe several other crimes and would face I would say a fifty percent likelihood of going to prison.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:58 PM


@Patricia: My boss @ 3M is a Canadian (from somewhere in Ontario- he went to Queen's University for his undergrad degree) and I asked him what his opinion was on the national healthcare program in Canada. Now mind you- my boss isn't the most conservative guy around- but he's not terribly liberal (from what I can tell)- he's pretty moderate so he basically said, "The Canadian health care not fantastic- it has its kinks, but it sure as hell beats American health care!"

He said the waitlists are a problem because people that need things like knee and hip replacements have to wait a year sometimes because their problem isn't seen as "urgent", but on the other hand if you get a life threatening condition you are treated immediately and at the government's expense. He says its a trade-off.

He says another problem is the lack of doctors because they all come to the US to work because it pays better. In his opinion, American doctors are vastly overcompensated- which leads to other doctors in other countries to think they deserve to be paid as ridiculously much as they are in the US.

Anywho. :) My boss is interesting to talk to, and I don't listen to that "no talking about politics at work" etiquette crap. :-p

Posted by: Rae at June 22, 2008 10:09 PM


Rae, you wrote: " I don't listen to that "no talking about politics at work" etiquette crap. :-p"

Be careful, this can burn you badly and you won't necessarily understand the cause if someone gets offended and finds an anonymous way to screw you.

As it turns out, there is at least one good reason for that particular rule of etiquette.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 10:25 PM


SoMG says: "Doyle Chadwick, I disagree with the definitions you posted. They are at least obsolete."

Had you bothered to click on the links, SoMG,you would've seen that those definitions are from online dictionaries (which update their data EVERY DAY).... and yet YOU claim the authority to tell us that they are "obsolete"? Who are you, the dictator of language for the United States?

YOU don't get to tell us what words mean... YOU don't have any such authority. You proaborts WISH you could change the meaning of "inconvenient" words, but YOU CANNOT.

The VAST MAJORITY of our society uses the words and terms of our language just as dictionaries report....NOT how YOU want us to use them.

Too bad you're so ashamed of the word "abortion" that you cannot stand to be associated with it in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, but that's just your tough luck. You can't support the killing of unborn babies without some consequences, you know?

Posted by: Doyle at June 22, 2008 10:40 PM


SoMG, never stop doing what you do! You're awesome for supporting a women's right to choose!
Posted by: Jess at June 22, 2008 8:56 PM

Jess,
What part of Jesus' ministry makes you think you should be a cheerleader for a hired killer? How do you reconcile support for a woman's right to kill babies in he womb?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 22, 2008 10:55 PM


pro-choice.com is AWESOME!!!

Posted by: truthseeker at June 22, 2008 10:57 PM


Doyle, you wrote: "Too bad you're so ashamed of the word "abortion" that you cannot stand to be associated with it in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, "

You have obviously not read many of my posts.

You wrote: "Had you bothered to click on the links, SoMG,you would've seen that those definitions are from online dictionaries (which update their data EVERY DAY)...."

I predict, and would bet money (if I were a betting man) that both of those sources will soon update their definitions of "pro-abortion". To mine. Unless they are funded by right-to-lifers or something like that. The definition of "pro-abortion" as favoring legalization of abortion, rather than as favoring an increase in the number of abortions, is used today only by right-to-lifers (and some elderly people). Normal people today say "pro-choice" when they mean someone who favors continuing legality of abortion, and only use the phrase "pro-abortion" rarely, to refer to the unusual position of desiring that as many abortions be done as possible.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 11:01 PM


If what SoMG said about educating patients is true, then NO post-abortive woman would refer to their abortion as removing "just a clump of cells; a blob of tissue", and they do it OFTEN.

Xalisae, I've said this before and I'll say it again... when a woman is pregnant she knows it's going to be a baby. If it were puppies or kittens or a tumor, maybe there wouldn't be so much deliberating about the subject, but clearly the woman knows what it is and what it will turn into and that is why she has an abortion.

Carla, I don't have a clue what you were responding to (4:23 p.m.). What was that all about?

Posted by: Edyt at June 22, 2008 11:46 PM


I go back and forth on the question of whether or not to nationalize medicine. It could end up like Medicare, or the Veteran's Administration, which are both government-run systems that successfully provide excellent care.

Well... perhaps they are provided with excellent physical care, but the veterans experiencing mental trauma have greatly slipped through the cracks, thus the extremely high suicide rates. I think if we look at government-run systems, we need to evaluate both physical and mental care, as both can end up with devastating results.

Posted by: Edyt at June 22, 2008 11:52 PM


Normal people today say "pro-choice" when they mean someone who favors continuing legality of abortion, and only use the phrase "pro-abortion" rarely, to refer to the unusual position of desiring that as many abortions be done as possible.
Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 11:01 PM

SoMG, "normal" people don't kill their children.
And only pro-aborts try to define pro-choice so narrowly that it means "pro-legalization of abortion." Don't confuse the fact that I am pro-choice with somehow meaning I am for the legalization of killing babies in the womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 23, 2008 12:29 AM


Well, only pro-lifers try to define pro-life so narrowly that it means "anti-legislation of abortion." Others could take it to understand anti-death penalty, or pro-health care for all persons... but obviously it does not. I think that's a bit confusing, don't you, TS?

Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 12:51 AM


"Truthseeker", you wrote: "And only pro-aborts try to define pro-choice so narrowly that it means "pro-legalization of abortion." "

What silliness. I bet that if you went around saying, "I am pro choice" anywhere in the USA just about everyone who heard you, pro-choice or right-to-life, would think you meant that you favor the continued legality of abortion. That's what "I am pro choice" means to people, except maybe when they're playing some kind of word game, which is what you seem to be doing when you say "Don't confuse the fact that I am pro-choice with somehow meaning I am for the legalization of killing babies in the womb." If you meant anything else you would have to explain yourself and you'd be considered an oddball for it.

Posted by: SoMG at June 23, 2008 12:57 AM


SoMG,
Just because my choice is to choose life, that doesn't somehow make mean I am not pro-choice.
I think people should have right to choose for themselves wether or not they participate in killing other people. I think people should a right to choose for themselves wether or not they smoke? I could go "on and on" but don't those views make me pro-choice?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 23, 2008 1:16 AM


Sure. Now that you've explained yourself. As promised, I now consider you an oddball for using the phrase "pro-choice" that way rather than in its normal way.

Posted by: SoMG at June 23, 2008 1:40 AM


The phrase pro-choice has been around for as long as language has been aroundand it has always meant the right to choose. If you want to accept a narrowed definition because it suits your purpose as part of the abortion rights agenda then so be it.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 23, 2008 2:01 AM


Yes, and now it means the right to choose abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at June 23, 2008 2:27 AM


Support a woman's right to choose life. In the rush to push abortion as a wonderful tool of liberation of women, we have put a worse oppression on them than what they ever had before, when abortion was outlawed. Now women are pressured and manipulated into unwanted abortions.
Men are not willing to give up the right of choice to women. This is especially so when they've heard feminist garbage about how oppressive it is to be deprived of an abortion, and how liberating it is to have one's child killed in the womb. So to protect his "rights to choose," he kills his wife or girlfriend when she refuses to abort the child he finds inconvenient.
But the so-called pro-choice movement is silent on this. they don't care. That shows how little they really care about the woman and her right to choose.

Posted by: Ceecee at June 23, 2008 2:44 AM


Yes, and now it means the right to choose abortion.

SOMG, it's a euphemism, not a title.

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 6:44 AM


@Patricia: My boss @ 3M is a Canadian (from somewhere in Ontario- he went to Queen's University for his undergrad degree) and I asked him what his opinion was on the national healthcare program in Canada. Now mind you- my boss isn't the most conservative guy around- but he's not terribly liberal (from what I can tell)- he's pretty moderate so he basically said, "The Canadian health care not fantastic- it has its kinks, but it sure as hell beats American health care!"

He said the waitlists are a problem because people that need things like knee and hip replacements have to wait a year sometimes because their problem isn't seen as "urgent", but on the other hand if you get a life threatening condition you are treated immediately and at the government's expense. He says its a trade-off.

He says another problem is the lack of doctors because they all come to the US to work because it pays better. In his opinion, American doctors are vastly overcompensated- which leads to other doctors in other countries to think they deserve to be paid as ridiculously much as they are in the US.

Anywho. :) My boss is interesting to talk to, and I don't listen to that "no talking about politics at work" etiquette crap. :-p

Posted by: Rae at June 22, 2008 10:09 PM


@Rae: I would say that is a pretty good assessment of the Canadian health care system. One of the biggest problems is that 50% of the graduates our medical schools train are women. However, within 10 years, most of those women have left the profession to focus on their families. It's not that they don't want to be doctors, it's that given the workload they cannot balance the two. One of the doctors I had when I was first a young mom was in this situation. She eventually quit when she was pregnant with her 2nd child. One of the ideas being floated is to salary these doctors with set vacation times etc. It's an enormous expense to train doctors and have them quit in 10 years time.
I would agree with your boss that the doctors in the US are overpaid. Yet your teachers are underpaid. Our lawyers are very overpaid.


@SOMG: I note you did not take the time to respond to Doyle. His post was most relevant and accurate. Stop messing with the language. You are a proabort. That's what you do. Promote abortion. If you were otherwise you would present women with ALL the options. You do not.


Any abortion provider who knowingly reported false data to the CDC or to his state government would be charged with fraud and maybe several other crimes and would face I would say a fifty percent likelihood of going to prison.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:58 PM

SoMG: you HONESTLY believe abortionists are gonna provide accurate stats to ANYONE. PLEASE PLEASE stop pushing abortionists as ethical, law abiding citizens. They are murderers of our children in the name of choice. Stop the rationalization. Show at least SOME integrity.

Posted by: Patricia at June 23, 2008 6:51 AM


SoMG says: "I predict, and would bet money (if I were a betting man) that both of those sources will soon update their definitions of "pro-abortion".

SoMG, you could take your "prediction/bet", along with five dollars, and buy a cup of coffee anywhere. Who do you think you are impressing with such nonsense? ONLY radical proaborts object to the term itself, the vast majority of the American public think of it JUST EXACTLY as the dictionaries state it: "Those who support the legal status of elective abortion".

You're living in a state of denial and trying to use your "predictions" to justify your disrespect for the academic credentials of dictionary publishers? Who in blazes do you think you are?

Well, anyway, thanks for showing the world what a weird mental fantasy world one must live in, to support the killing of unborn babies. Reality is just too painful for you, isn't it?

Posted by: Doyle at June 23, 2008 7:31 AM


SoMG: you HONESTLY believe abortionists are gonna provide accurate stats to ANYONE. PLEASE PLEASE stop pushing abortionists as ethical, law abiding citizens. They are murderers of our children in the name of choice. Stop the rationalization. Show at least SOME integrity.

Posted by: Patricia at June 23, 2008 6:51 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You do know that abortion is legal in the us, and that murdering babies is - by definition - against the law?

Posted by: Laura at June 23, 2008 7:55 AM


Jess,
I am so sorry to read that you congratulated SoMG for supporting a woman's right to choose.
You are supporting the killing of babies, and giving a high five to an abortionist!!!

Pretend for a moment that SoMG was the abortionist who killed my Aubrey........you are happy he is doing his job!

Sad. So sad.

Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 8:03 AM


Pretend for a moment that SoMG was the abortionist who killed my Aubrey........you are happy he is doing his job!

Sad. So sad.

Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 8:03 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, just because you paid an abortion provider, jumped up on a table, gave your permission and sent your knees into different zip codes doesn't make YOU at all responsible.
While you're at it, why don't you blame the car that carried you to the clinic that day.

Posted by: Laura at June 23, 2008 8:39 AM


Yeah, just because you paid an abortion provider, jumped up on a table, gave your permission and sent your knees into different zip codes doesn't make YOU at all responsible.
While you're at it, why don't you blame the car that carried you to the clinic that day.

Laura, Carla has repeatedly acknowledged her part in the blame for her abortion. You know this. Her abortionist also has much more to blame. The abortionist knew something she didn't, because her abortionists saw it on a daily basis- that her baby was indeed a baby, and not just a clump of cells. If Carla had been told about the reality of her baby in the womb, she most likely would have changed her mind, as many women do when they get their ultrasounds, or see pictures of fetal development before getting an abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 8:58 AM


Even SOMG acknowledges that in the womb, they are persons, Laura - maybe not at the "baby" stage, medically speaking, but still full human beings and persons. And yet, he also acknowledges that he won't tell women this unless they SPECIFICALLY ask, because he doesn't want to deter them from abortion. Doesn't sound very "pro-CHOICE" to me.


Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 9:01 AM


Thanks Bethany. :) I don't usually acknowledge whats her name anymore. Her comments are only meant to inflame.

You know, Chris Arsenault used the terms abortion-vulnerable and abortion-minded once. AV was me. I would never have had one, knowing what I know now and if I would have seen the ultrasound and known of my other CHOICES I couldn't have gone through with it. If I had been told the truth I wouldn't have had an abortion.

Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 9:07 AM


Carla, have you ever read the book "tilly" by Frank E Peretti? You might find it very comforting...at times in the book, you will probably cry, but the forgiveness and love from the little girl in the book is very touching, and I think it would really be a good book for you to read, if you haven't already. I think that although the story is obviously fictional, it holds a lot of truth about the depth of God's forgiveness.

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 9:13 AM


SOMG, are you actually an abortionist, or a nurse practitioner? Seems like you had said once that you weren't yet an abortionist, but were a NP. Did that change?

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 9:16 AM


I love the book Tilly! I have purchased quite a few and give them away to others that regret their abortions. :)

Your love and caring warm my heart, Bethany.

Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 9:16 AM


Carla, (hugs) we have copies of that book at the Pregnancy Center, to give away to those who could use it.

Last month, I was talking to a woman that I've known for a long time (she used to go to the same church as me), and she was looking at a picture I had drawn as a memorial for 2 stillborn infants- she started getting teary eyed, and told me that she had had an abortion 30 years ago (I never would have guessed this about her)...she said that the scars never go away. She said that for years after the abortion, she wondered if she would even be able to have another child, if God would forgive her, and she thought if she DID have more children, they would all hate her and be freaks, because of what she had done. She said that no matter what, she had never found anything that could help her get over the pain. My heart went out to her.

At the pregnancy center, they had these purses, filled with all kinds of lotions, brushes, things like that...that a church had gotten together for people who come into our pregnancy center. (What a nice thing for them to do!)

We were told to give these out to people that we feel led to give them to. This woman seemed like the perfect person to give one too.

There are lots of post abortion booklets at the CPC, which I stuffed in the purse, along with all the other things in it...and the book, "I'll Hold you in Heaven" by Jack hayford. I took it to her, and I can't tell you how much she seemed to appreciate it all. I can only hope that she will get over the pain and realize that she truly has been forgiven.

I wish more people could understand how terribly hurtful abortion can be to women. These are the statistics that should be shown more often, and BEFORE the woman makes the devastating "choice":

http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/DisplayAds/Posters/11x17Buggy.pdf

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 9:29 AM


Bethany,
My heart goes out to that woman too.

There are just no statistics are studies or articles that compare to sitting down with someone, looking into their eyes, and hearing in their own words their story of abortion regret.

Which is why I am sure that those who support abortion try so hard to silence the voices of those that regret it. You know who you are.

Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 9:50 AM


Somg gives ill informed advise to board.

These cases are reasons to use methotrexate, rather than RU486, for medical abortions. Methotrexate would have killed the ectopic pregnancies and might well have prevented the ruptures.

Posted by: SoMG at June 22, 2008 9:47 PM

Question. Do/Did you inform your patients, or this board, that methotrexate is a cytotoxin?
Question. Did you inform your patients that methotrexate,or this board, is actually a "off branded" drug, used for medical abortion?
Question. What is off branding as defined by the FDA?
Question. Do you screen your patients for any disease for which methotrexate is contraindicated, or inform this board of such screening's of a person recieving a medical abortion via MTX?
Question. Which diseases is methotrexate contraindicated in?
Question. Why did you not inform this board of the adverse actions of MTX, when recommending or prescribing MTX at this board?

Question. What is the correct protocol for methotrexate injection in matters of medical abortion?.
Question.Do you "decide" the dosage of MTX by a protocol of;50mg per square meter of body mass area?
Question. What is the mean average of MTX given in a medical abortion, by injection?
Question. What doseages of MTX are available as a oral administration for the "branded use" of MTX?
Question. Is MTX given in a much larger, a megadose for medical abortion, as compared to the prescribed doseage for the "branded purpose" of MTX? What is the ratio by mg. of branded, and off branded doseage of MTX?
Question. A doctor who did not screen a patient for a tubal pregnancy before a medical abortion, is following or not following the accepted protocol for "medicine abortion"?
Since you represent yourself a a authortity on medical abortion, are you being non-professional and ill informing, and propagandizing for medical abortion at this board by not presenting in your "quoted post" some of the questions, and then answers forthcoming from you, I have asked you SOMG?
To those reading this post, watch and read the non answers to my questions, which SOMG should have informed this board of the properties of MTX. SOMG ill informs , omits basic doseage information, contraindications in patients recieving a large dose of a cytotoxin,adverse reactions of MTX. In fact SOMG, if I was a patient of yours and you have not informed me of the simple fact that MTX is off branded and a cytotoxin given in a large dose, you might be considered "doing it on purpose", and covering up basic actions,functions of a medical abortion.
If Somg does not answer the above questions, one can conclude your dealing with a propagandist for medical abortion, with minimal professional ethics, or even the ethics of a propagandist for the decision of medical abortion.
Another words, Hisman, et. al, your dealing with a person with a degree in biological sciences, at best, who is nothing more then a "pill
salesperson", who got to name a minor action of biological chemistry in a magazine.
BTW, SOMG, no links, no paste and copy answers to my questions, since that is "using" another professionals studies/mind, and in fact brings into doubt your ability to think on your own SOMG.
Fire away quack man, and answer the questions asked in this post.
I will state that no response to this post by you SOMG, is proof of my conclusions of your being a mere propagandist for abortion.



Posted by: yllas at June 23, 2008 10:11 AM


"PLEASE PLEASE stop pushing abortionists as ethical, law abiding citizens."

Well, except for the handful of ciminals in the profession, doctors who perform abortins ARE eithical law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Hal at June 23, 2008 10:38 AM


Wow, I am REALLY looking forward to hearing the answers to all of Yllas's questions!

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2008 11:54 AM


SoMG, never stop doing what you do! You're awesome for supporting a women's right to choose!

Posted by: Jess at June 22, 2008 8:56 PM

Have you lost your marbles?


Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 12:41 PM


What is a ciminal?

Posted by: huh? at June 23, 2008 4:38 PM


What is a ciminal?

Posted by: huh? at June 23, 2008 4:38 PM


Criminal.

Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 4:52 PM


Support a woman's right to choose life. In the rush to push abortion as a wonderful tool of liberation of women, we have put a worse oppression on them than what they ever had before, when abortion was outlawed. Now women are pressured and manipulated into unwanted abortions.

Part of that I agree with. A woman should be supported in her choice - whether that's life or death. I don't agree that the oppression is greater, however, as now we are not forcing women to give their children up for adoption nor are we forcing them to marry the man who impregnated her, as we did in the past.

Men are not willing to give up the right of choice to women. This is especially so when they've heard feminist garbage about how oppressive it is to be deprived of an abortion, and how liberating it is to have one's child killed in the womb. So to protect his "rights to choose," he kills his wife or girlfriend when she refuses to abort the child he finds inconvenient.

Whoa, feminism is not saying that at all. Feminism is merely saying that men don't have the right to choose what a woman should do with her own body. You may be right - that men aren't willing to give up their "right" to own a woman's body, and thus kills her for it, but that's not a problem because of abortion. That's a problem with the patriarchy.

But the so-called pro-choice movement is silent on this. they don't care. That shows how little they really care about the woman and her right to choose.

Not true at all. I read a lot of pro-choice websites and blogs, and killing pregnant women is a big problem that a lot of people are concerned with. It's the same problem as making abortion illegal though - it's one person trying to exert his will over another person's body. Pro-choicers and feminists care very deeply about this issue, and are trying to elevate women's societal status to one where she is not deemed a lesser, disposable being. There is no feminist creed that says abortion is liberating or childbirth is oppressive. Feminists maintain that the right to have an abortion or have a child is the right of the woman and no one else's.

Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 8:09 PM


It's a blatant show the conservative leanings of website [sic] and ignores all of the medical information to jump right into the conservative doctine.

It is quite a slanted site.

Posted by: Doug at June 23, 2008 9:27 PM


Feminists maintain that the right to have an abortion or have a child is the right of the woman and no one else's.

Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 8:09 PM

[Applause]

Posted by: Sabine at June 23, 2008 10:41 PM


Feminists maintain that the right to have an abortion or have a child is the right of the woman and no one else's.

Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 8:09 PM

[Applause]

Posted by: Sabine at June 23, 2008 10:41 PM

Thats why feminists" slike Edyt and Sabine hould expect ato die lonely and single. Any man they have sex won't give a rats ass about her or her children, since they don't give the man any rights in the decision of the babies life inside the womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 24, 2008 12:02 AM


Ummmmm "Truthseeker", I don't think there's any known correlation between pro-choice views and either marital status or childlessness.

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 12:25 AM


One final comment before this thread drops into the archives: think how much more effective "prochoice.com" might have been in its stated goal of helping pregnant women realize that they have choices other than abortion if it had not included many obvious lies about abortion. A site which presented all three options honestly could present the good reasons for keeping and growing a pregnancy more convincingly. Lines like "Sure abortion protects you from the medical/surgical trauma of labor and delivery, but is it worth it?" would be more appealing than the ridiculous attempt to present abortion docs as evil and dangerous.

And one postscript: If you care about the pregnant woman's right to choose adoption or parenting rather than abortion, and really want to make sure this right is as secure as it can possibly be, you should support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would write this right into federal law. Vote for Obama '08!

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 12:40 AM


Ummmmm "Truthseeker", I don't think there's any known correlation between pro-choice views and either marital status or childlessness.

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 12:25 AM

SoMG,
The correlation is common sense. If you don't recognize a father's rights during the pregnancy, then you shouldn't expect the father to fell as much responsibility to be welfare of said child. Also, the father will feel slighted at your lack of respect for him as a partner. As a fathers I feel they should be "equally" responsible for the baby, even while the baby is in the mother's womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 24, 2008 12:56 AM


"Truthseeker", you wrote: "The correlation is common sense."

Uncommon nonsense, I'd call it. I recall reading somewhere that states where right-to-lifism is most popular are also states with the highest divorce rates, including, highest divorce rates AMONG PARENTS.

You wrote: "If you don't recognize a father's rights during the pregnancy, then you shouldn't expect the father to fell as much responsibility to be welfare of said child. Also, the father will feel slighted at your lack of respect for him as a partner."

None of this would apply if the two partners decided together to have a child before conception.

But even if it were true, it would be a hypothetical mechanism, a possible reason for a correlation between position on abortion rights and marital status IF anyone had reported one. It would not justify your asserting such a correlation as fact when it has never been measured.

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 1:17 AM


Bethany, no, I have never posted information about my degrees on this site.

I have argued that members of underling medical professions should be permitted to do first-trimester manual suction abortions, and to manage medical abortions, and I have predicted that they soon will be. Now I'm willing to go further and predict with a fair degree of confidence that ten years from now in the year 2018 the majority of abortions in the USA will be done by non-doctors. With doctors on call.

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 5:39 AM


I hope you're in the middle of a reply to Yllas, SOMG...cause I'm interested in your answers.

Okay, so you're not a NP. Are you a clinic owner or manager?

Amazing how you care so much about your patients well being that you would allow non-doctors to perform their abortions.

Posted by: Bethany at June 24, 2008 6:59 AM


Bethany, I didn't say I'm not an NP. I said that I had not posted any information about my degrees on this site. I now add that I don't intend to do so.

You wrote: "Amazing how you care so much about your patients well being that you would allow non-doctors to perform their abortions. "

I refer you to

http://www.popline.org/docs/0731/268806.html

Money quote:"No differences in complication rates were found between physician assistants and physicians. "

A doc can train an underling health professional to do manual suction abortions early in pregnancy with safety and efficacy similar to his own, and teach what information it is necessary to tell a medical abortion patient, in about two days.

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 7:49 AM


Another interesting line from the study I linked to above: "Physician assistants have been providing abortion services in Vermont since 1975."

Posted by: SoMG at June 24, 2008 7:53 AM


SOMG, did you miss Yllas's post at 10:11 AM yesterday?

Posted by: Bethany at June 24, 2008 9:32 AM


"Prochoice.com" is an anti-abortion website disguised as a pro-choice website. It is deceitful and wrong.

Posted by: DRF at June 27, 2008 7:33 AM


SoMG's postings did not make me interested in befriending clinic workers. Whether abortion is safe or not has absolutely no bearing on its morality. The woman (and father) caused the pregnancy, and must accept the consequences.
Of course, being law-abiding does not mean ethical. Think back to Nazi Germany to understand that.

Posted by: Mike at July 10, 2008 8:13 PM


Mike, the Nazis were for forcing some women to continue pregnancies, and for forbidding others to do so. They were quite anti-choice.

Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 5:10 PM