2nd-trimester abortion help(Researchers Kill 110 Babies to Determine Which 'Device' Works)

Health24 (HealthDayNews) ^ | 4/10/2003

[truthandlife]

A low-tech, hand-held vacuum aspiration device works as well as a more expensive electrical unit for ending second-trimester pregnancies, say researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. They compared the two devices while performing second-trimester abortions on 110 women with an average gestation of 16 weeks. Manual vacuum aspiration was used on 73 women and electric vacuum aspiration on 37 women.

No difference in procedure time The study found no significant differences in procedure time between the two groups of women. There were no reported complications.

Manual vacuum aspiration is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for first-trimester abortions, but had not been tested for second-trimester abortions.

Good news for developing nations Now that we know the low-tech device is safe and effective, it can be taught to doctors in developing nations to help reduce the prevalence of unsafe abortions and complications, senior author Dr Paul Blumenthal, associate professor of gynaecology and obstetrics, says in a news release.

The electrical aspiration devices and the power required to operate them are often not available in developing countries. - (HealthDayNews)

[madprof98]

"I will not vote for any politician who will promote abortion or the culture of death, no matter how appealing the rest of his or her program might be. They are wolves in sheep's garments, the KKK without the sheets, and sadly enough, they don't even know it."

Bishop Sean P. O'Malley, OFM Cap.

I guess you can't expect much from the rank-and-file pro-lifers when the leaders talk like this but bestow accolades on the death-dealers who claim to be Catholic. Of course, you could say O'Malley is something of an exception, but neither he nor any other American bishop has faced off against the self-described Catholics who proudly boast that they are pro-abortion.

I would bet money that a cardinal and a few bishops show up to toast Arnold at his inauguration.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Sorry, I voted for McClintock and my conscience is just fine.

Arnold, in all ways is not much different that the two Dems. All three are simply shades of Gray, no pun intended. Arnold does not support the referendum to prevent illegals from getting driver's licenses. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is incorrect. He talks a good game but there is nothing below the surface. Way too many gullible Freepers here.

Some people can fool themselves with their rationalizations but they'll never fool God when the time comes.

[hocndoc]

just a bump for later and a prayer to G-d to spare our nation.

[hocndoc]

just a bump for later and a prayer to G-d to spare our nation.

[Mr. Silverback]

Sorry, I voted for McClintock and my conscience is just fine.

Just as fine, I'm sure, as those who voted for Perot in '92 because Bush 41 was "just like the Democrats" and gave us 8 years of Clinton.

Arnold does not support the referendum to prevent illegals from getting driver's licenses. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is incorrect.

It took me less than one minute to find this article. Pertinent paragraph follows:

Schwarzenegger says he will rescind a newly tripled car tax on his first day in office, renegotiate state employee union contracts for cost savings and repeal a law to give driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants.

I know he also mentioned repealing the license law on October 1st, and IIRC, he even said it would be Item #2 on the agenda, right after killing the car tax.

Here's another para, from :Hispanic Voters Hard to Define in Recall":

When Davis recently signed a bill allowing illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses, rivals, noting he had twice vetoed similar bills, accused him of pandering to the Hispanic vote. Schwarzenegger and McClintock both oppose the bill.

On September 30th, Davis warned Hispanic voters that the election of Arnold would bring back Pete Wilson-style views on illegal immigration and the permanent repeal of the license-for-immigrants law. And here's another couple of paras, from political analyst Hector Preciado, who sounds like a typical member of the socialist wing of the Latino community to me:

"Schwarzenegger is a threat to Latinos," argued Preciado. He did not say how he plans to solve problems facing the state. And on top of that he has Pete Wilson as an adviser to his campaign."

"He has made it clear that he does not understand the issues that affect the Latino community," continued Preciado. "He claims to be defending immigrants, but he promised to revoke a law that allows to issue driving licenses to illegal immigrants."

One guy says he'll repeal the law. The other one accuses people who oppose it of racism. Guess what? Today you walked in the booth and helped the second guy. Nice work.

Some people can fool themselves with their rationalizations but they'll never fool God when the time comes.

As a brother in Christ, I have to say to you with all due respect: What self-righteous blather. We live in the natural as well as the spiritual, and this vote has natural consequences beyond whether you feel warm and fuzzy over your "good deed" in the voting booth today. If a Scout helps an old lady across the street and they block a police car chasing a dangerous criminal, has he really done a "good deed" in the real world? Today your vote helped the candidate of Planned Parenthood, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton. When it comes down to real world consequences involving the lives of unborn children (and perhaps, terror victims down the road) you could have voted for Larry Flynnt and had the exact same effect. It's your vote, and your judgement, and that's what freedom is all about, but don't give the rest of us the church lady routine because we want to keep one of the biggest scumbags in politics away from the governor's chair.

[attagirl]

well, when we went to the vet's to have my daughter's GERBIL put to sleep, I had to sign 2 forms. That was a state (wonder if FL, home of Terri Schiavo, does this?) requirement.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

What self-righteous blather

Do you read your own posts?

I've generally kept religion out of my posts in this election, except for some posters who flaunt it in the face of their vote for a candidate who despises Christians and Christian values. I've refrained from comment until it reached the level of hypocrisy. I am embarassed for some of these posters. You've sold out and you want to punish those of us who didn't.

Face it, you voted for a pro-abort. No amount of spin can change that.

Nevertheless, it is likely you'll get the candidate you desire who is nothing more than a Democrat in Republican clothing. You will be sorely disappointed as you realize you fell for a con as he raises taxes, does nothing about illegals and generally leads California down the path of destruction, albeit slower than Davis or Cruz. You haven't been paying attention to his lies and contradictions during these past few weeks?

You got what you wanted. Hope you can live with it.

[venezia]

"As for "absolutely nothing," tell that to the kids who'll live because the PBA ban got accomplished."

But the PBA ban isn't going to save any babies. It only outlaws one procedure. Even Flip Benham of Operation Save America acknowledges that the ban won't prevent any abortions, it will just change the methods used.

Is it better to abort a fetus inside the uterus or outside? Does it make a difference?

[Mr. Silverback]

And of course, that's why the abortion industry is so happy that the PBA ban is being passed, right?

[venezia]

The abortion rights community is up in arms because it will limit the options for a doctor who might be facing complications or difficulties. Sometimes the D&X procedure is the safest for the woman involved. The other concern is that the law may be broadly interpreted to outlaw D&E procedures as well, which is the most commonly used second-trimester procedure. I know that makes you happy but it clearly goes against the stated goal of the bill, which is to outlaw only one particular procedure. If it does, in fact, do just that, then it won't reduce the number of abortions, anymore than shooting a doctor reduces the number of abortions. Abortion is a patient-driven service, and when a woman decides she wants to abort she will go to extremes to make it happen.

[chs68]

Thanks for posting this article. It is difficult to read it without becoming sick to one's stomach and without a real sense of moral revulsion.

I went to the actual article on the website of something called News24, evidentally a South Africans medical site.

The article contained links to two additional aritcles for further reading. One of thosse articles, entitled Abortion Systems Failiing, described how, in the view of the South African Medical Research Council (MRC), abortion "systems" within South Africa were failing. THe article contained the following: "The MRC's Prof Jack Moodley recently found that hostile moral attitudes of health workers were one of the main factors preventing women from gaining access to legal abortions."

Ah, yes. Health Workers with moral values that are "hostile". It is those pesky moral values that prevent women from getting legal abortions.

At least Professor Moodley had enough honesty to say that he and his ilk view moral aiitudes as being hostile to abortion. There are so many who would like us to think that abortion is completely moral.

[Qwinn]

Had to chime in here... (my first Freeper post, by the way, hello all :)

#1) no one who voted for McClintock needs to feel "guilty" for being a spoiler... if Arnold and Tom had been evenly divided, they still would've been Bustamante (or incredibly close, anyway). So there was no real possible way for there to be a spoiler in favor of the Dems in this race.

#2) If I lived in CA, I would've voted for McClintock, but I admit a large part of that would've been due to the fact that I thought #1 was pretty likely... Arnold was almost sure to win and I would've mainly been hoping to give Tom at least more votes than Bustamante, just to make the Dems -really- hear the message. If I had really thought there would've been a spoiler effect, I might well have changed my mind.

#3) Someone here claimed that Catholic bishops that oppose abortion publically are a rarity. This is completely not true. (for the record, I am a very pro-life agnostic) Many bishops have come out and actively opposed abortion, and I know that one bishop (he had an odd name, wish I could remember it) actively attacked Davis for being a CINO (Catholic In Name Only) and that, pretty bluntly, he had no right to call himself one. Davis's full smear tactics were unleashed against this bishop, and on the night of the recall he was still around and being honored for his help with orphans. I know another thread on this board mentions him in more detail.

#4) Given the Episcopalean Church's recent actions, and given Rome's recent and very very strong defense of marriage, abortion and family, I think it's a little wrong to hear Catholic bashing these days. I think the times of hearing Protestants referring to -practicing- Catholics as "pagans" really needs to come to an end - I'm not even a practicing Catholic myself and I've found that kind of bashing rather hypocritical. It's just as wrong to blame true Catholics for CINO's as it is to blame true conservatives for RINO's.

#5) I respect those who vote their conscience - I really do - and remember, McClintock would've been my vote too - but those of you who are bashing anyone who voted for Arnold because they saw him as at a minimum much better than Davis are, IMHO, wrong to do so. Let's say #1 wasn't true, and McClintock really -had- spoiled Arnold's chances, and Bustamante had gotten in. The harm to the pro-life movement in CA would've been tremendous. Arnold will at the very least not pander to the abortion lobby the way Davis and Bustamante surely would have, if for no other reason than to not upset his voting base. In moral decision making, one has to weigh not only one's actions but also the consequences of those actions. The possibility that there would have been dire consequences of voting for Tom over Arnold was real. Yeah, I wish everyone who really had preferred Tom had voted for him too (and I would've myself)... but... nothing would've been worse that enabling Bustamante into power (and I say this as a Cuban - the minority liberals love to hate).

#6) Just for the record - as for Arnold's catholicism, in case anyone's wondering, no, according to the Catholic Catechism he would not be in good standing. The Church's stance is basically this - it is permissible for a catholic to vote for measures that would move the law -toward- protecting life and minimizing harm, even if it is not the ultimately desired end result of banning it altogether. Therefore, a Catholic could vote for a bill that permitted abortion except for partial birth, because it would be moving in the direction of minimizing harm and preserving life, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT what is "politically possible". Assuming Arnold keeps his word on PBA and parental permission, he would in fact pass that test of at least working to improve the current situation. HOWEVER, (and here is where Arnold loses it), the Church also basically requires vocalizing a full pro-life position while doing so. A Catholic lawmaker cannot verbally advocate a basically pro-choice position even if one is legally advocating a more pro-life agenda than is in place. So yeah, at least in terms of being a Catholic in good standing, Arnold calling himself pro-choice does make a material difference, at least to his standing.

#7) So, given the breathing room the Church allows lawmakers for political realities, does a pro-lifer voting for a candidate calling himself "pro-choice" that will at least move things in the right direction bear equivalency to, well, being Arnold and thus losing good standing? As I read it, I don't think so, not if the voter himself maintains a vocal pro-life position. The point of the Catechism, I think, is that as long as you advocate a pro-life position and seek to convince others of the same, making a -political- evaluation as to how to best achieve the desired end of moving things in the right direction is permissible. Voting for a pro-choicer who would move things in the right direction over the alternative would be equivalent to a lawmaker voting for a bill that affirmed a woman's right to choose but that increased restrictions on it - minimizing harm and moving things in the right direction.

The Church leaves it up to the individual as to what is "politically possible" in the environment one is in to move things in that direction, so, IMO, a Catholic who was an outspoken pro-lifer but who chose Arnold over McClintock due to fear of the spoiler effect (thus making a "politically possible" evaluation) would certainly remain a Catholic in good standing. I don't think anyone who voted for either of the Republican candidates would have anything to go to confession for.

#8) I can understand bishops not publically assaulting Arnold for his stated position, again on the basis of what is politically prudent and possible, and at least as long as he was moving things in the right direction. If assaulting him had the effect of putting another Davis into power, the consequences would be dire, and the effect of that act could be to move things in the -wrong- direction. Now, if the situation arose where it was Tom vs. Arnold head on with no Davis or Bustamante to worry about, yes, I think a Catholic could very well be required to vote for McClintock.

#8) Several people here are decrying the PBA ban as useless and won't save any lives. With all due respect - are you nuts? Haven't you learned anything from the Dems as to the political reality in our country? This is the foot in the door for the pro-life movement - just as the gay lobby uses the Lawrence decision as the foot in the door to redefine marriage. Recognize the PBA ban for the legally brilliant tactic that it is - it makes abortion illegal on the basis of cruelty to the fetus! It finally gives the fetus rights independent of the mother, and recognizes cruelty as a factor! That argument can be expanded upon - once it's in place, we can then argue that the next form of late-term abortion is just as cruel, and so on. Look, the abortion lobbyists are going to accuse the pro-lifers of an evil conspiracy to get all abortions banned no matter WHAT we do, so hell with 'em, let's prove 'em right. The incremental, inch-by-inch legal wearing tactics that they have employed for the last 30 years can work for us just as much as it can work for them, and I really don't see any faster way to accomplish it short of armed revolution (call me when it starts). The PBA ban is legally the most significant victory in the fight to make all abortion illegal since Roe v. Wade, and to underestimate the legal importance is folly. Bush deserves MAJOR kudos, and IMHO he should have earned the vote of -every- single-issue pro-life voter in America for all that he has accomplished for the cause.

Sorry this post was so long. I do tend to be a bit verbose :) Had a lot of catching up to do on this thread :)

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Um, um, sorry! I meant to say given Rome's strong stance FOR marriage and AGAINST abortion... heh, sorry.

Qwinn