quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
One of the docs can step in here but,...
I dont think skb's math is correct.
BC has a 1-2% failure rate per intercourse, not 1-2% flat out numbers of women.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
One of the docs can step in here but,...
I dont think skb's math is correct.
BC has a 1-2% failure rate per intercourse, not 1-2% flat out numbers of women.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think calling abortion murder, taking the position that abortion should be banned outright, etc. are usually shouted the loudest by those that have never found themselves in a situation where their child or wife was raped and impregnated, a niece was the victim of incest, a family member was told their fetus had some serious, incurable defect, etc. They have never had any skin in the game yet they pontificate that a one size fits all answer is appropriate. You have to wonder if they ever found themselves in the situation how would they feel to be told, tough luck you have no choice your wife or daughter is going to have to carry that bastard’s child to term, you are going to just have to find a way to cope with an incurable defect that leaves your child a vegetable, etc. My guess is many would still be screaming just screaming about the injustice of the result.

No skin in the game, exactly. A bunch of old men who do not have to deal with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think calling abortion murder, taking the position that abortion should be banned outright, etc. are usually shouted the loudest by those that have never found themselves in a situation where their child or wife was raped and impregnated, a niece was the victim of incest, a family member was told their fetus had some serious, incurable defect, etc. They have never had any skin in the game yet they pontificate that a one size fits all answer is appropriate. You have to wonder if they ever found themselves in the situation how would they feel to be told, tough luck you have no choice your wife or daughter is going to have to carry that bastard’s child to term, you are going to just have to find a way to cope with an incurable defect that leaves your child a vegetable, etc. My guess is many would still be screaming just screaming about the injustice of the result.

No skin in the game, exactly. A bunch of old men who do not have to deal with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy.

All have skin in the game. All have loved daughters, mothers, aunts and sisters.

If men shouldn't have an opinion, why are you expressing yours?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

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.

It is my way of pointing out that Dr. Butler nor Dr. Dollar...posted any real information contrary to what I have said.

I am happy to stand on what I have said. We have a collection of preserved fetuses from horses in monthly stages at my primary hospital for teaching purposes.

Even 45 day fetuses look like a horse. I have touched them with my fingers in-utero...I know how they react. I have no reason to suspicion that human fetuses with shorter gestation are not similar.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think calling abortion murder, taking the position that abortion should be banned outright, etc. are usually shouted the loudest by those that have never found themselves in a situation where their child or wife was raped and impregnated, a niece was the victim of incest, a family member was told their fetus had some serious, incurable defect, etc. They have never had any skin in the game yet they pontificate that a one size fits all answer is appropriate. You have to wonder if they ever found themselves in the situation how would they feel to be told, tough luck you have no choice your wife or daughter is going to have to carry that bastard’s child to term, you are going to just have to find a way to cope with an incurable defect that leaves your child a vegetable, etc. My guess is many would still be screaming just screaming about the injustice of the result.

No skin in the game, exactly. A bunch of old men who do not have to deal with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy.

All have skin in the game. All have loved daughters, mothers, aunts and sisters.

If men shouldn't have an opinion, why are you expressing yours?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
One of the docs can step in here but,...
I dont think skb's math is correct.
BC has a 1-2% failure rate per intercourse, not 1-2% flat out numbers of women.

BC failure is measured in any unintentional pregnancies per woman/year.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So does that mean if a woman has sex, X number of times while on BC she will get pregnant regardless? I dont think that is how it's calculated. We need a statistics guy..... or a gambler, to clear this up.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So does that mean if a woman has sex, X number of times while on BC she will get pregnant regardless? I dont think that is how it's calculated. We need a statistics guy..... or a gambler, to clear this up.

I interpret the statistics as, 100 women who are on BC for a year, one will become pregnant during that time resulting in a 1% failure rate.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is how it is used in medical literature.

If it was per act of sex, then it wouldn't work, now would it?

Its pregnancy, not child to term- a substantial number of pregnancies spontaneously terminate. (the medical term is spontaneous abortion, as opposed to elective abortion- which gets some pro life types a bit agitated.)

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So does that mean if a woman has sex, X number of times while on BC she will get pregnant regardless? I dont think that is how it's calculated. We need a statistics guy..... or a gambler, to clear this up.

I interpret the statistics as, 100 women who are on BC for a year, one will become pregnant during that time resulting in a 1% failure rate.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Dr. Butler, the subject of your sentence ("this") is ambiguous. I can't tell whose quote you're endorsing.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is how it is used in medical literature.

If it was per act of sex, then it wouldn't work, now would it?

Its pregnancy, not child to term- a substantial number of pregnancies spontaneously terminate. (the medical term is spontaneous abortion, as opposed to elective abortion- which gets some pro life types a bit agitated.)

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So does that mean if a woman has sex, X number of times while on BC she will get pregnant regardless? I dont think that is how it's calculated. We need a statistics guy..... or a gambler, to clear this up.

I interpret the statistics as, 100 women who are on BC for a year, one will become pregnant during that time resulting in a 1% failure rate.

So could we also say that if four women were to use BC for a 25 year period each, we could expect one woman to end up with an unintended pregnancy during that time frame? I believe we could and that to me is not exactly rare.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
DO I have to read through the whole thread, or can someone explain how a discussion of Bud Light going woke turned into a discussion on abortion and birth control? Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
DO I have to read through the whole thread, or can someone explain how a discussion of Bud Light going woke turned into a discussion on abortion and birth control? Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

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.

It is my way of pointing out that Dr. Butler nor Dr. Dollar...posted any real information contrary to what I have said.

I am happy to stand on what I have said. We have a collection of preserved fetuses from horses in monthly stages at my primary hospital for teaching purposes.

Even 45 day fetuses look like a horse. I have touched them with my fingers in-utero...I know how they react. I have no reason to suspicion that human fetuses with shorter gestation are not similar.

You would not be you if you did not double down even when you are wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

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.

It is my way of pointing out that Dr. Butler nor Dr. Dollar...posted any real information contrary to what I have said.

I am happy to stand on what I have said. We have a collection of preserved fetuses from horses in monthly stages at my primary hospital for teaching purposes.

Even 45 day fetuses look like a horse. I have touched them with my fingers in-utero...I know how they react. I have no reason to suspicion that human fetuses with shorter gestation are not similar.

You would not be you if you did not double down even when you are wrong.

I am not wrong. And, no one has presented information to the contrary.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

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.

It is my way of pointing out that Dr. Butler nor Dr. Dollar...posted any real information contrary to what I have said.

I am happy to stand on what I have said. We have a collection of preserved fetuses from horses in monthly stages at my primary hospital for teaching purposes.

Even 45 day fetuses look like a horse. I have touched them with my fingers in-utero...I know how they react. I have no reason to suspicion that human fetuses with shorter gestation are not similar.

You would not be you if you did not double down even when you are wrong.

I am not wrong. And, no one has presented information to the contrary.

Total bullshit and you know it.

Quit putting words in mouth Steve. Not only is it not bullshit…everything I know to be fact about animal fetuses…tells me I am correct.

The human fetus is not developed enough at 60-90 days to struggle for life,

One thing for damn sure…is that ‘you’ have zero experience or knowledge to back that claim up.

go back and re-read the comments from the Doctors with experience on pregnant woman.

I read Dr. Dollar saying he had NEVER seen or touched one alive.

I read Dr. Butler stating they were instrumentally dislodged and removed mechanically by suction in women preventing the the determination of the action of life I contend.

But no where have I read that my assertion was “known” by them to be different in humans than how I know it to be in animals.

You were wrong and you remain wrong.

An incorrect conclusion…but we must consider the source.

The irony is that you are an expert and I am a layman.

You got the classification correct. But, sadly you are like many clients I have fired over the years…too dumb/blind/ignorant/close-minded (you pick) to accept facts as facts and prefer to live in a reality that exists only in your mind.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
A bug will struggle if you try to grab it. It doesn't require much consciousness or self-awareness for the bug to do so.

I fail to see how a struggling horse fetus sheds any wisdom on the human abortion dilemma.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
That's my boy, doubling down on being wrong.

Dr. Butler from pg 6:

"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."

Hmm, from my reading Dr. Butler is saying that he feels at 17-18 weeks you are only getting reflexive response and not much more. He also states your methodology is not practical on a woman. None of this supports your position, and yet you still claim to be correct. All the while being wrong.

You are stubborn if nothing else and committed to disseminating that incorrect information in your attempt to frame this debate to fit your religious views, not much scientific about that.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
That's my boy, doubling down on being wrong.

Dr. Butler from pg 6:

"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."

Hmm, from my reading Dr. Butler is saying that he feels at 17-18 weeks you are only getting reflexive response and not much more. He also states your methodology is not practical on a woman. None of this supports your position, and yet you still claim to be correct. All the while being wrong.

You are stubborn if nothing else and committed to disseminating that incorrect information in your attempt to frame this debate to fit your religious views, not much scientific about that.

No where have I stated the methodology used in horses could be applied to humans.

What I am stating is that horses, with an even longer gestation, have given me a unique opportunity (much to my chagrin) to interact, by touch and grasp, with living fetuses while alive and well in their environment — an experience of which ingrains itself into your memory bank.

Dr. Butler (whom I have the utmost respect) gave NO such recount and gave an “opinion” (expert opinion) based on ultrasound imaging.

I see zero information that negates my actual experience and changes what I KNOW is probable with human fetuses based on “actual” hands-on experience with animal fetuses.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter needs not to equate woman to farming enterprise.

Tell this woman about horse breeding.


posted 02 May 2023 05:46 Hide Post
What I know is women are being rejected for necessary medical treatment leaving them sterile in TX and Missouri.

So much for, “do no harm.”

https://amp.kansascity.com/new...rticle271850147.html

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I submit that what you were feeling in the horse fetus was little more than an instinctive reaction.

Non-expert opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
That's my boy, doubling down on being wrong.

Dr. Butler from pg 6:

"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."

Hmm, from my reading Dr. Butler is saying that he feels at 17-18 weeks you are only getting reflexive response and not much more. He also states your methodology is not practical on a woman. None of this supports your position, and yet you still claim to be correct. All the while being wrong.

You are stubborn if nothing else and committed to disseminating that incorrect information in your attempt to frame this debate to fit your religious views, not much scientific about that.

No where have I stated the methodology used in horses could be applied to humans.

What I am stating is that horses, with an even longer gestation, have given me a unique opportunity (much to my chagrin) to interact, by touch and grasp, with living fetuses while alive and well in their environment — an experience of which ingrains itself into your memory bank.

Dr. Butler (whom I have the utmost respect) gave NO such recount and gave an “opinion” (expert opinion) based on ultrasound imaging.

I see zero information that negates my actual experience and changes what I KNOW is probable with human fetuses based on “actual” hands-on experience with animal fetuses.

Stubborn and wrong as the day is long.

Amazing to watch you twist Dr. Butler's statement to fit your agenda.

You are truly a special piece of work Lane.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
And yet somehow, you still remain wrong

Go back and read Dr. Butler's statement on reflexive motion at 17-18 weeks. This hardly supports your assertion.

I have read up on the subject of fetal development on the net, and my reading comprehension remains very strong.

You are bullshitting us Lane and that is quite clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Lane,
You are 100% right.
Abortion for any reason and in any morality is murder.
On masks - you are correct and the world fell for the trap of "this will save you". Masks are useless unless used correctly.
School prayer - really? You can't pray in school? 1st amendment says free speech even if you are talking to God. Further, The "lack of organized religion" in schools has really hur the education system. Same as trannies teaching sex ed...

The world is beyond upside down - it is inside out where people call "evil" as good and good as evil.

And if the libs here want a definition of what is "good" - that is the problem. Evil is easy, good is not.

You'll advocate for a zygote but you don't say shit about the eight year old kid that got shot in the head yesterday by that AR everybody should have. Nothing needs to be done about that, right?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
And yet somehow, you still remain wrong

Go back and read Dr. Butler's statement on reflexive motion at 17-18 weeks. This hardly supports your assertion.

I have read up on the subject of fetal development on the net, and my reading comprehension remains very strong.

You are bullshitting us Lane and that is quite clear.

One thing that is clear…”you” don’t have to the knowledge base to make the determination.

A reflexive action requires an intact nervous system to the spinal level minimally. An instinctive reflex to evade (as Roland presented) grasp…requires minimally brain-stem function — fact.