Over the course of my career, I gave anesthesia to hundreds of women having first trimester abortions- some voluntary, most medically necessary. I never saw an intact fetus struggling to stay alive. In fact I never saw any tissue recognizable as a human body part. Just saying….

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
No, he's not right on the masks. Otherwise they wouldn't still wear them at doctors' offices and hospitals.

My point was that masks were not the mechanism to control the pandemic. My hypothesis was that they would make no statistical difference in the outcome. I was proven correct.

I am a surgeon — an orthopedic surgeon. I wear a mask and PPE more than most. I was educated in the science of their efficacy and sat for boards with questions on the topic. I understand their benefits AND their limits.

Thanks for clarifying your actual views on masks. But I don't know what you mean by "statistical difference in the outcome."

If a mask prevents me from getting the disease, how would your statistics account for it?

Statistics are best applied to large groups. Statistics have been applied in this situation by 1) the comparison of infection rates before and after mask implementation in areas, locations, or venues; 2) the comparison of infection rates throughout the whole pandemic in similar states (or municipalities of countries) with strong mask mandates and compliance (CA) to states with no mandates and low mask implementation (TX); and 3) in prospective studies where large groups of similar participants engaged in similar activities in similar venues with and without mask implementation.

You would account for a tiny data point.

The other side is that masks only work for large particles. In surgery, the point is that it is to stop the egress of bacteria from the surgeon's mouth and nose into the operative site. They were proven to reduce the number of postoperative wound infections.

The theoretical use of a mask for general use is that it would stop large water droplets from going to person to person, but that neglects that unless you are actively sick, there really isn't much of that being expelled...

For ICU or isolation precautions for viral illnesses, you are talking about multiple systems working together.

A mask is useless against viruses. There you need a respirator (N95 is considered minimal.)

You need full body coverage (gown, gloves, cap, face shield/goggles, etc.) and then you need to follow protocols involving not touching anything unnecessarily and not with unprotected parts, then removing and discarding all the items (after each contact) and then washing immediately thereafter.

The monster in the room was that the ID specialists knew this, but were OK with breaking it in the name of costs and "being seen as doing something".

If you have a cough (for whatever reason) or sneezing, then, yes, it makes sense for you (the source of the exposure) to wear a mask to prevent giving exposure to others. If you are wanting to be paranoid, you can either wear a mask or not get within about 6 feet of others (which is what most interactions would be the limit of the macroparticles spreading to others would be. aka social distancing.)

The masks were virtue signaling.

Sure we all went along for a while and we should have. We were initially told it was important, we all wanted to do the right thing, I certainly didn't want to upset my neighbors.

But it became apparent the masks weren't a panacea and the vitriol went full nuke.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Over the course of my career, I gave anesthesia to hundreds of women having first trimester abortions- some voluntary, most medically necessary. I never saw an intact fetus struggling to stay alive. In fact I never saw any tissue recognizable as a human body part. Just saying….

Be honest.

You were not anywhere near the operative field (or you would not have been monitoring the patient with anesthesia.)

Also, the usual methodology of human abortion, with the exception of partial birth abortion, is that there is no visualization of the fetus involved. You enter a trochar in the cervix, dilated it, then scrape off the uterine lining and anything there blindly, and then suction out whatever is in the uterus. The usual result is a bunch of bloody saline/material in a suction bottle that is not really recognizable as anything.

Dr. Easter's hand in the uterus is not a practical methodology for a human. For one thing, the whole uterus at this point is about the size of a pear to an orange.

We know that a 20 week fetus has developed organ specialization, including neural tissue and muscular tissue. You do see some reaction on ultrasound when performing amniocentesis at 17-18 weeks.

I don't have any issue with admitting that you will likely see reflexive motion at that point in development.

Can it recognize what is happening? I doubt it.

Like with hunting... the abortion folks need to admit they are killing something. Trying to shelter the woman involved from knowing that brutal fact does no one any good.

I have no issue with the law determining where we are going to draw the line. We will have to live with it. But abortions will happen, and women will die (historical fact) getting back yard abortions if it is made illegal.

Maybe the better way of dealing with it is to absolutely prohibit public money being involved in the procedure or organizations/facilities doing it, and then making it fully legal.

That was a method tried but the left was unwilling to not have the public pay for it.

Thanks for the good info, Doc. Very helpful to our discussion.

But really, can't you figure out where the left is coming from in wanting to use government funds to help pay for legal abortions?

In truth, what would an abortion cost without government involement, including the hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist fees? I bet the total would land somewhere in the $3-5000 range.

Do you think poor people can pay that amount? I assume you and I could come up with $3-5k without undue hardship, but do you really think poor people living from paycheck to paycheck have that kind of money lying around?

What about the cost to the public of a poor family (often a single mother) raising an unwanted child to adulthood? A fully public-funded abortion is a bargain in comparison.

quote:

The usual result is a bunch of bloody saline/material in a suction bottle that is not really recognizable as anything.

That’s exactly my point. The end result is not recognizable as anything but slurry composed of mucous, blood and tissue- no body parts, much less an intact fetus writhing in pain or avoidance……. And a 20 week fetus is well into the second trimester, when elective abortions are MUCH less common except for those that necessary for issues related to medical complications of pregnancy.

It seems safe to conclude after the input from two Doctors who have worked with pregnant women that the physiology of women and mares are slightly different and that a HUMAN fetus is not developed enough at the 60-90 day mark to "struggle for life". That fits in perfectly with any reference I can find on the development of the human fetus.

No,

Dr. Dollar didn’t see the fetus and told us they were done under anesthesia. Depending on the type of anesthesia…the fetus would likely be under effect as well — making it more esthetically pleasing but making the argument invalid.

Dr. Butler told us the procedure used in women at that stage prevented visualization.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No,

Dr. Dollar didn’t see the fetus and told us they were done under anesthesia. Depending on the type of anesthesia…the fetus would likely be under effect as well — making it more esthetically pleasing but making the argument invalid.

Dr. Butler told us the procedure used in women at that stage prevented visualization.

Is this your way of admitting that a 60-90 day human fetus is not developed enough to struggle for life?

You love to tell us about all your attributes, how about adding being able to admit when you are wrong to that list?

You are wrong on this matter, just as I pointed out to you initially. That must be tough to swallow from someone who knows zero about the issue.

I saw a jackass of a preacher convince a couple close to me that God would deliver their child. That abortion in any guise was a sin. It was diagnosed in womb w some horrible condition. I think this runs in my wife’s family as her mother had a similar experience after multiple miscarriages.

The doctors told them otherwise. Following the preacher, they went ahead w the birth.

The baby lay in an incubator in pain and died.


I have no use for those types.

At least, they had a choice. I have never asked if they would have done different after going through that.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No,

Dr. Dollar didn’t see the fetus and told us they were done under anesthesia. Depending on the type of anesthesia…the fetus would likely be under effect as well — making it more esthetically pleasing but making the argument invalid.

Dr. Butler told us the procedure used in women at that stage prevented visualization.

All legal abortions are done under anesthesia, be it general or what’s called conscious sedation. And yes, it’s essentially impossible to visualize a fetus during an abortion. No one in their right mind would but a flexible scope in a uterus during an abortion. Thus there is no way to “see” how a fetus does or doesn’t react. A human is not a horse, although Ingrid Newkirk says they are the same or equal.

so Barrister Superior -
an imperfect defensless human deserves to be destroyed?

(hmm, seems the world has seen this view before)

so an imperfect defenseless human in pain deserves to be destroyed?


so Barrister Superior are you a perfect human?

do you know a human that is not imperfect?


yet you choose to be the pontificating arbiter of who is imperfect enough to be destroyed?

actually, we know by your postings here,
a human , particularly a defenseless human,
needs not be imperfect nor in pain to deserve being destroyed .


you know it is killing, not merely reproductive choice


(by the way, i am an imperfect human and i suffer physical pain, so— - )

Abortion would have been less painful to the child born and parents.

The choice should be theirs made in consult with their doctor, and whoever they want to include.

Not you and not the state.

Glad you know what is best for everyone. Ate you a Libertarian too?

You have had a full life. That child had no medical hope. Only the false hope given to
suffering folks by a false prophet.

And if older folks want to a medical assisted suicide, I would not vote against it. It is their life to live and end as they see fit.

You do not suffer near what that infant suffered.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
so Barrister Superior -
an imperfect defensless human deserves to be destroyed?

(hmm, seems the world has seen this view before)

so an imperfect defenseless human in pain deserves to be destroyed?


so Barrister Superior are you a perfect human?

do you know a human that is not imperfect?


yet you choose to be the pontificating arbiter of who is imperfect enough to be destroyed?

actually, we know by your postings here,
a human , particularly a defenseless human,
needs not be imperfect nor in pain to deserve being destroyed .


you know it is killing, not merely reproductive choice


(by the way, i am an imperfect human and i suffer physical pain, so— - )

>>so Barrister Superior -
an imperfect defensless human deserves to be destroyed?<<

No, you should have to raise them, you busy-body.

The hypocrisy of these pseudo-conservatives/libertarians makes me nauseous. Out of one side of their mouth they preach about how parents should have a right to determine what their child is taught, whether the Ten Commandments are posted at school, whether their child should have access to birth control, etc. Out of the other side of their mouth they preach about how a child should be forced to bear the fetus conceived through rape or incest, that a young woman and her parents should not be able to make a decision on abortion based on the specific facts of that family's situation, etc. In the end it all boils down to their desire to make everyone else conform to their perceived vision of righteousness, everyone else be damned.

The lack of empathy expressed by old men on here actually makes me sad.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
so Barrister Superior -
an imperfect defensless human deserves to be destroyed?

(hmm, seems the world has seen this view before)

so an imperfect defenseless human in pain deserves to be destroyed?


so Barrister Superior are you a perfect human?

do you know a human that is not imperfect?


yet you choose to be the pontificating arbiter of who is imperfect enough to be destroyed?

actually, we know by your postings here,
a human , particularly a defenseless human,
needs not be imperfect nor in pain to deserve being destroyed .


you know it is killing, not merely reproductive choice


(by the way, i am an imperfect human and i suffer physical pain, so— - )

>>so Barrister Superior -
an imperfect defensless human deserves to be destroyed?<<

No, you should have to raise them, you busy-body.

The parents and who they wish to consult should make that decision.

Not you and not the state.

again, the defensive smarmy Barrister chorus ,

each human fetus has unique human dna
true or false

just man up
call it by its name

killing

not some euphemism to make yourselves feel better

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The lack of empathy expressed by old men on here actually makes me sad.

i support not killing defenseless humans

yes, that is terribly unempathetic

your level cognitive dissonance is amazing

Human being?

What stage of pregnancy is that photo from Mike? Would a woman know she's pregnant at that point?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:


Human being?

if the dna is uniquely human

most likely
has more human qualities than most lawyers

perhaps the barrister chorus

has forgotten the basics:

Malum in se

I did not ask about the DNA, I asked whether in your mind that is a “human being” since you like to wax at length about killing. You ask a lot of questions, how about answering one.

you ignorant ass
- what did :

“ if the dna is uniquely human most likely has more human qualities than most lawyers”

interpret into in your deficient little brain

one can only guess

btw
i have not forgotten :
Primum non nocere

You seem to have a better command of Latin than English. I will just take your gibberish as a simple “yes” that a zygote is a “human”. So I take it that you believe that an abortion under any circumstance, e.g., rape of a child, incest, etc., is and should be criminal?

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

i have not forgotten :
Primum non nocere

Does that including not harming a woman by forcing her to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy? One that may have come from abuse or one she cannot support?

Apparently not. Brood mares and nothing more to some of you.

Pathetic that you would place more value on an undeveloped fetus than on a living, breathing woman.

The bottom line is you would force decisions on folks you will never have to make nor live with.

Despite the harm and suffering it causes.

The only ignorant person is you.

You have not been there. Nor will ever be.

You do not care women in Texas are brig turned away with dead fetuses in them. One now permanently sterile.

You do not care children are born never to walk, speak, or have a thought. We can hope the family can sustain them without state assistance that you also vote against.

You do not care a rape child’s health is put on the line to deliver the person who raped her child. What about her agency.

You do not care of freedom of choice for those who have to deliver children.

I am just done w a 21 week abortion ban which was permitted under Plan Parenthood V. Casey.

What is clear is the intolerance of the Right. Which is costing you elections. Keep it up.

Dobbs will be used to return the 2nd Amendment to the states before I die.

Like the Founding Fathers intended. Yet, you will scream tyranny and train when it does.

Keep Government out of doctor offices and adult bedrooms.

Like Dr. Easter never answers a question posed, you did not answer his question.

Answer it. Or shut up.

Folks on here like to give Government Officials the business for not answering the question asked. Yet, the faction are the ones who refuse to answer questions posed to them here. Such integrity and critical think on display.

Go ahead say something insulting instead of answering Mjines question for the 3rd time.

pain an suffering are normal parts of life-
anyone with any intellectual maturity recognizes such

killing defensiveness humans should not be “normal”


my “position“is not about elections

it
IS
about basic human rights

either
it is perfectly acceptable to kill defenseless humans

OR
it us not

pontificate away

Still did not answer the question.

Forcing people to make choices you will never face, part of The Factions normal life.

Very Libertarian and Consensus force people to suffer because I say so. Regardless of their agency on bring about the suffering.

You ate the Ghoul and Communist Mr Big Government of my Will.

It is not God’s will you work.

Why don’t you leave folks alone, and go support another pro insurrectionist candidate.

I do not see an abortion before viability as killing a defenseless human, that is a fetus, not a human.

Yes it is a basic human rights, the basic human rights of the living breathing woman in question.

you are even more dense than i imagined -

congratulations -
not many times at my age do i grossly underestimate stupidity -

THIS is not about religion -
(as ,i have noted in ARPF, on numerous occasions)

then i guess, as well, i additionally, grossly under estimated
your memory and/or reading comprehension -

the basis for not killing defenseless humans-
is PURELY from secular humanism

(please cite, which of course , you cannot, any instance in any of the previous posts in ARPF where i have EVER brought religion into this conversation )

slippery slope
kill some for one excuse, kill others for another, (imperfection , perhaps)
then killing all is but a semantic change in the conversation away
( as stated we have seen this mindset in history-)

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
I do not see an abortion before viability as killing a defenseless human, that is a fetus, not a human.

Yes it is a basic human rights, the basic human rights of the living breathing woman in question.

.

well, let’s remove your viable human dna-
are you still a living human

i think not

quote:

You ate the Ghoul and Communist Mr Big Government of my Will.

you need a keeper

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You seem to have a better command of Latin than English. I will just take your gibberish as a simple “yes” that a zygote is a “human”. So I take it that you believe that an abortion under any circumstance, e.g., rape of a child, incest, etc., is and should be criminal?

what have my written words stated:

killing

how one criminalizes killing is semantics -

it does es not change the reality that it is :

killing

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
I do not see an abortion before viability as killing a defenseless human, that is a fetus, not a human.

Yes it is a basic human rights, the basic human rights of the living breathing woman in question.

.

well, let’s remove your viable human dna-
are you still a living human

i think not

It takes more than DNA to make a human life Mr. Deep Thinker.

Is a Caterpillar a butterfly? They have the same DNA.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You seem to have a better command of Latin than English. I will just take your gibberish as a simple “yes” that a zygote is a “human”. So I take it that you believe that an abortion under any circumstance, e.g., rape of a child, incest, etc., is and should be criminal?

what have my written words stated:

killing

how one criminalizes killing is semantics -

it does es not change the reality that it is :

killing

So you are against capital punishment? War? Killing in self defense? Police killing a criminal during the commission of a violent crime?

Killing covers a lot of ground and not all of it is a bad thing. Some folks just plain ask for it.

yet another illiterate

poor thing-

did you not see “defenseless “

no, of course not -

did you not see
“ how one criminalizes”

no, again, of course not,
you arrogant illiteracy drives you forward

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
pain an suffering are normal parts of life-
anyone with any intellectual maturity recognizes such

killing defensiveness humans should not be “normal”


my “position“is not about elections

it
IS
about basic human rights

either
it is perfectly acceptable to kill defenseless humans

OR
it us not

pontificate away

I’m curious. Any particular reason why you write in stilted paragraphs? Is it supposed to to be haiku or blank verse poetry or is your grammar and syntax just poor?

and
you care ,
because?

Let’s talk about defenseless. Curious, if you had a daughter that was 11 years old who happened to be out playing one day and was abducted, traumatized, raped and impregnated by some middle aged sex offender felon, you would force your daughter to carry that fetus to term and give birth to it? That’s protecting a defenseless child?