This is just DISGUSTING too..
Suction aspiration is a surgical abortion
procedure performed during the first 6 to
12 weeks gestation. It is also referred to
as suction curettage or vacuum
aspiration.
Your abortion provider may give you pain
medication and misoprostol in preparation
of the procedure. You will lie on your
back with your feet in stirrups and a
speculum is inserted to open the vagina. A
local anesthetic is administered to your
cervix. Then a tenaculum is used to hold
the cervix in place for the cervix to be
dilated by cone shaped rods. When the
cervix is wide enough, a cannula, which is
a long plastic tube connected to a suction
device, is inserted into the uterus to
suction out the fetus and placenta. The
procedure usually lasts 10-15 minutes, but
recovery may require staying at the clinic
for a few hours.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 16:00pm
So is liposuction. Ever seen brain
surgery? Should we not perform life-saving
open-heart-surgery because it's "icky"?
I didn't mean it was visually disgusting.
I mean the actions of the protesters were
MORALLY ABHORRENT and DISGUSTING.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:34pm
Snug
wrote:
Most opponents of abortion rights confine
their empathy to zygotes, embryos, and
fetuses.
How many do you know, really well? None
at all, I suspect, for the assassination
of the character of an entire movement of
millions of people is something that need
no real truth behind it, does it?
On the other hand, I've read many
prochoice posts where they say they can
ONLY feel empathy for the mother, not for
the baby. Prolifers, on the other hand,
always say they feel compassion for BOTH,
not just one.
So it seems to me that prochoicers are the
ones with the "Compassion Deficit
Syndrome", not prolifers. But on the
other hand, what does any of this have to
do with the morality of electively killing
unborn babies?
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-02-08 16:37pm
I didn't mean visually disgusting either..
I mean the action of sucking out a
developing human being.. disgusting..
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:39pm
Birch
wrote:
and one who takes pictures of women
entering abortion clinics and posting them
online
(yodavater).:
Indeed. Taking photos and posting them
online is a non-violent protest, is it
not? And I've learned that those pictures
actually saved the life of one baby
recently.
One local woman found out she was
pregnant, and in a panic decided to get an
abortion as quickly as possible. But she
was unwilling to come to the Concord St.
abortuary because she'd heard that she
would be photographed and her picture put
online. So, she drove to Atlanta.
By the time she got there, she said so
much time had passed, and she had thought
about it so much that she changed her mind
just before time for the abortion. And
she credits the fact that my camera was
there for saving her baby.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:40pm
nightangel73
wrote:
is that true
yoda?
See above.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:43pm
Snug
wrote:
Of course it's true. He's the creepy guy
with the camera at the Concord Street
clinic in Knoxville. Also apparently an
admirer of Neal Horsley's work in the area
of creepy clinic stalkers. You know, the
same Neal Horsley that can't find anyone
to host his site encouraging lunatics to
kill doctors.
It's hard to be "creepy" or be a "stalker"
and be standing right out in the open for
all to see. But don't let that stop you.
And what led you to your conclusions about
Neal Horsely? He and I don't see eye to
eye on many things, but I don't believe
I've ever seen him encourage anyone to
kill anyone. Do actual facts seem to get
in your way?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:45pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Yoda?
Really??
Really. Read what is posted on the
website if you want to know the purpose of
the photography. This thread has already
been hijacked sufficiently.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-02-08 16:48pm
yodavater
wrote:
A big lie from an abortion
extremist.
Sure.
meblonde
wrote:
This is just DISGUSTING
too..
Suction aspiration is a surgical abortion
procedure performed during the first 6 to
12 weeks gestation. It is also referred to
as suction curettage or vacuum aspiration.
Yeah, that's the reality. No one says
it's pretty.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:52pm
nightangel73
wrote:
How can you do such a thing?? That's
horrible invasion of privacy and it is NOT
the way to save babies!! What a huge
dissapointment
yoda.
First, it is not an "invasion of privacy".
If that were so, then I and many others
who use clinic photography would've been
arrested or at least sued successfully
many times over. There is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in a public place,
many courts have ruled that way.
Second, it is indeed a "way to save
babies". I've recently been told about a
woman who went to Atlanta instead of
having an abortion here, and changed her
mind about having it simply because it
took her so long to get to Atlanta.
Third, I am an activist. I do a lot more
than just post on forums such as this, and
I am open to any non-violent tactic that
has a chance of stopping an abortion, even
at the very last minute. And photography
has never been accused of making anyone
more likely to abort.
Quite frankly, I am often "disappointed"
by the lack of commitment by those who
call themselves prolifers, but in reality
do almost nothing to get out in the real
world, and actually do something. But I
try to refrain from criticizing such
people, hoping instead that they will
someday feel the call to do more than just
talk about saving babies. And if they
make a mistake along the way, I remember
that they are after all, only human.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:54pm
Snug
wrote:
Fortunately, that particular fruit-bat
cannot encourage the doctor-shooters and
the clinic-bombers any more, as he's no
longer amongst the
quick.
What a lovely way to speak of the
departed, who are no longer here to defend
themselves.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:58pm
meblonde01
wrote:
I’m embarrassed that yoda would do such
a thing along with other pro-lifers that
seem to be so radical about their beliefs.
It’s a sorry way to get you feelings
known..
And there are things about some positions
you have taken here that embarrass me, but
that's my problem, I suppose.
There is nothing "radical" about using a
perfectly legal, non-violent tactic to
discourage abortion, especially when I
know it works. And it has nothing to do
with getting my feelings "known", it has
everything to do with saving the lives of
babies.
Perhaps sometime in the future you will go
to a clinic protest and see if you can
think of some other way to dissuade those
people who are headed into the door with
their babies hearts beating for the last
few times?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-02-08 16:59pm
Eiri
wrote:
That is just
DISGUSTING.
Yes, it certainly is. And probably 100%
false.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 18:09pm
yodavater
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
How can you do such a thing?? That's
horrible invasion of privacy and it is NOT
the way to save babies!! What a huge
dissapointment
yoda.
First, it is not an "invasion of privacy".
If that were so, then I and many others
who use clinic photography would've been
arrested or at least sued successfully
many times over.
It's legal, so that makes it right? Cool!
Welcome to the world of being pro-choice.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 18:27pm
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
Fortunately, that particular fruit-bat
cannot encourage the doctor-shooters and
the clinic-bombers any more, as he's no
longer amongst the
quick.
What a lovely way to speak of the
departed, who are no longer here to defend
themselves.
What's to defend? Robert Ferguson thought
it was okay to shoot doctors and plant
bombs. Thus, the world is a safer place
now that he's no longer a part of it.
Ditto for Paul deParrie, who met his
ignominious end at a Denny's a few months
later.
If their god hates abortion so much, and
wants people to shoot doctors and bomb
clinics, how come he keeps yanking his
"warriors" off the front lines with fatal
heart attacks in their 50s?
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 18:33pm
[quote="yodavater"]
Snug
wrote:
And what led you to your conclusions about
Neal Horsely? He and I don't see eye to
eye on many things, but I don't believe
I've ever seen him encourage anyone to
kill anyone. Do actual facts seem to get
in your way?
You know, I love my Blockbuster Online
service, because they have such an amazing
variety of DVDs to choose from.
Last week, Soldiers In The Army Of God
appeared in my mailbox. And there was ol'
Neal, telling the world that shooting
doctors was a good idea.
I shudder to think what he tells his
minions in private.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-02-08 18:40pm
yodavater
wrote:
meblonde01
wrote:
I’m embarrassed that yoda would do such
a thing along with other pro-lifers that
seem to be so radical about their beliefs.
It’s a sorry way to get you feelings
known..
And there are things about some positions
you have taken here that embarrass me, but
that's my problem, I suppose.
There is nothing "radical" about using a
perfectly legal, non-violent tactic to
discourage abortion, especially when I
know it works. And it has nothing to do
with getting my feelings "known", it has
everything to do with saving the lives of
babies.
Perhaps sometime in the future you will go
to a clinic protest and see if you can
think of some other way to dissuade those
people who are headed into the door with
their babies hearts beating for the last
few times?
Yoda, with actions like that your position
does not come across with compassion. And
helping, loving, compassion goes a lot
further than the method you are using. How
many woman do you think changed their
minds by you doing that in such a radical
way? I think not many.
|
lucy315
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 123 Location: New Jersey, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:5
Posted: 03-02-08 19:42pm
Eiri
wrote:
"As a woman steps out of the
Hope Clinic, Bill Gover implores her,
"When you're crying at night, don't turn
to the booze or the drugs. Turn to Jesus
Christ." The Illinois center provides
abortions, and Gover is one of many
protesters who come out every Saturday
morning to demonstrate against the
facility. He carries a large green and
white "Jesus" sign and follows patients as
they walk from their cars to the door of
the clinic.
[snip]
"I often see patients bawling because
they've been so brutalized by protesters,"
she told new volunteers at a recent
training session.
[snip]
At volunteer training, escorts are
repeatedly told not to speak to or even
look at the demonstrators. They are also
warned not to use each others' names at
the clinics. Widzer and Diedermann agree
that demonstrators will constantly goad an
escort whose name they know.
Oh my gosh, this is horrible! Thank-you
for posting the link....
And what is this I am reading about
someone taking photographs of woman at
clinics and posting them up on a website?
Is this really
true? And what exactly is being said
about these woman? I'm not sure it's
illegal, but I would think it would be a
form of slandering or defamation of
character. (depending on what was
written)
Note* When I try to post this it says the
system detects censored words in my text.
I'm not sure what that means, but I am
going to post it anyway. If there is
anything wrong with my post (Eiri) please
let me know.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2500 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 03-02-08 20:15pm
Yoda I guess you haven't met here yet a
well respected pro-lifer activist in this
board called Guest. He goes to abortion
clinics with his group but they go there
to express solidarity to the unborn in
their time of death. They are silent and
open to talk to the women who go there in
a non judgemental way. I'm pretty sure he
is being more succesful than you in saving
lives. I recall him saying of the women
who went to talk to them voluntarely. See
I would join a group like that. What he is
doing is correct. But what you are doing
doesn't sound like caring for the unborn
about to die but more like revenge toward
the women going to abort. I have to think
you are not a christian Yoda because a
christian wouldn't do what you are doing.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 20:33pm
meblonde01
wrote:
I didn't mean visually
disgusting either.. I mean the action of
sucking out a developing human being..
disgusting..
You are welcome to your opinion.
Personally I can't watch the x-treme
videos of skaters falling and breaking
bones; seeing that happen is just
nauseating to me. But, I know some people
do enjoy watching others be stupid, and so
I know it's not MY right to tell them what
to watch. It's also not my right to tell
the person in the video not to skate,
because when they fall I get grossed out.
It's also not my right to tell the person
with the camera not to shoot the video
because if it is broadcasted it'll gross
me out - AND it is not my right to tell
the maker of the show not to put in videos
like that OR to tell the station not to
broadcast the show.
You see? Just because I personally dislike
something - even something physically
harmful - doesn't give me the right to
remove the rights of all of those people
who watch, participate in, or produce such
videos. It is however my right to change
the channel...
disgusting..
Is this really
true? And what exactly is being said
about these woman? I'm not sure it's
illegal, but I would think it would be a
form of slandering or defamation of
character. (depending on what was
written)
