Michigan Votes Forum

crazycajun:

 my daughter has never needed the D&X proceedure. my ex has never needed the D&X proceedure. i have (obviously) never needed the D&X proceedure.

With all due respect, I do not believe you are a medical expert or that your particular personal experiences are so all-fired universal that they qualify you to draw always or never or anything even resembling general conclusions based on them.  In short, you really are not credible as an expert in this subject area.   

please explain what medical condition can only be cured by the D&X proceedure.

I'll leave that to experts like members of a select committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist who concluded that D&X may be the best and most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.  While that is a general statement, it is properly qualified as I would expect be done by competent experts, since every case has its own unique mix of characteristics and circumstances.  If the statement errs it does so properly in the conservative direction of keeping options open rather than closing them off by fiat.   

Just so you know, Obstetricians are medical doctors with particular and specialized expertise in the field of pregnancy and birth.  Gynecologists are medical doctors who have specialized expertise in the field of women's health as it relates to their reproductive organs and systems.    

you have been asked that several times, yet you refuse to answer.

Now you have your answer.  There is no need for you to ever again ask your question. 

the proceedure cures no illnesses, diseases, or conditions other than pregnancy.

Medical procedures do not necessarily cure anything.  They are performed for a variety of purposes, including the prevention of complications.  

Again, I remind that you have no apparent expertise or credibility in this matter.  I will defer to people who have expertise as medical specialists dealing with the specific issues raised by the D&X procedure.  Those experts have been identified above.   

there is no life threatening condition, disease or illness that D&X "cures" that normal birth wouldn't cure just as well, without killing the child.

Once more, you do not have expertise that enables you to credibly make that assertion.

Actual experts note that the D&X procedure is used most commonly to remove a deformed, dead fetus from the womb with the least negative impact on the woman's health.  If your real aim in banning use of the D&X procedure is the banning of abortion, be honest enough to say so.

The US Supreme Court majority opinion banning use of this procedure to abort a live fetus clearly stated that the ban would not stop a single abortion or save the life of a single fetus.  The reason?  An equally and perhaps even more gruesome procedure known as Dilation and Evacuation can be performed with the fetus (alive or dead) in the womb.  

D&E also includes collapse and suctioning of the fetus' skull, but calls for dismemberment of the fetus within the womb before it is suctioned out piece by piece. The ACOG has concluded this procedure presents additional dangers to the woman for reasons that should be quite obvious with anyone who has a modicum of intelligence and common sense and thinks the matter through without being blinded by emotion.

so, please tell me why women NEED to have this proceedure done.

You can ask this question in myriad ways, as you are wont to do.  But it does not change the answer.  The answer is, it is a matter to be determined by the woman and her physician.  

I do not pretend to know the answer to your question, although you apparently pretend to, but not credibly.  

My position is very simple: the decision about which medical procedure to use in any given circumstance is a matter that properly stands between the physician and patient (or patient's competent personal representative as defined by law) in all cases.   

also, please tell me the LOGIC that dictates that a woman carry the baby within her body KNOWING that she will abort it at the end of the term.

I guess you would have to ask the woman who makes that decision that question.  Be sure to include all your generalized assumptions, which probably are false.  You should get some interesting answers, if you actually pay attention.  I'm sure you also have your own theory about the logic issue, that you are likely to share with us in some future rant.

doesn't that sound a LOT like PRE-MEDITATION???

Does it?  I don't know, since I am not psychic and cannot plumb what is in every individual's mind from virtually infinite distance.  Do you pretend to have that expertise, too?

Getting back on topic, I think it is absurd to mandate government interference in the intimate medical matter of pregnancy and childbearing, and then turn around and object to a bill that would regulate nurse-patient ratios in Michigan hospitals.  

I'm not sure about the need for this particular bill -- whether or not nurse-patient ratio is a widespread enough problem to warrant legislation.  But I do know that so far your arguments against the bill have been purely conjectural ravings about how business people who make staffing decisions like this always behave morally and rationally.  Frankly, real life experience that is commonplace casts a lot of doubt on that argument.  I'll wait to see reliable facts from a reliable source emerge before forming an opinion.

That's the responsible thing to do.

 "I'll leave that to experts like members of a select committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist who concluded that D&X may be the best and most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. "

you wrote that.

now, exactly WHAT is that particular circumstance?

don't they know?

obviously not.

so, 13,000 women last year had this very same 'MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE' cured by the D&X proceedure, yet they don't know what it is.

it would seem a simple enough request to provide WHAT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE MIGHT BE.

 are there any nurses out there that can tell us what the medical necessity for partial birth abortion is?

any doctors???

anybody????

crazycajun:

 "I'll leave that to experts like members of a select committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist who concluded that D&X may be the best and most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. "

you wrote that.

now, exactly WHAT is that particular circumstance?

don't they know?

obviously not.

so, 13,000 women last year had this very same 'MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE' cured by the D&X proceedure, yet they don't know what it is.

it would seem a simple enough request to provide WHAT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE MIGHT BE.

 

Sane Michigander answered your question. Maybe he didn't use the magic word you require.

 i can understand using a technique to remove a DEAD fetus from a womb, but that dead fetus would normally be expelled within a few hours of dying anyway. there have been a few cases of women carrying around a dead fetus inside them for decades, so the 'SAVING THE MOTHER'S LIFE' exception could not logically be raised here.

what sane said was that the circumstances that this proceedure be used be solely and strictly between the mother and the doctor. this is not the case.

the doctor has a responsibility to report requests for the intentional killing of a viable baby, even in the womb, just as he has a responsibility to report child abuse of any other kind.

now, as sane doesn't know, and you don't know, and the doctors who perform them routinely do not know, or cannot say, and the doctors who presented amicus briefs before SCOTUS obviously don't know, one has to ask, is there REALLY a circumstance that REQUIRES the use of this proceedure on a viable, living child in the womb?

all logic leads to the answer of NO.

now, you COULD prove me wrong, and come up with something, but i doubt you will after this long. you have almost sucessfully danced around that three word answer. I DON'T KNOW.

there is no shame in ignorance, only in taking part in the killing of innocents.

and before you compare abortion to the death penalty, be advised, i have no problem with killing the guilty. i don't see anything wrong with it. i DO however see something wrong with killing the innocent.

and before you go THERE... your side STILL hasn't given the name of a single FACTUALLY INNOCENT INMATE THAT WAS PUT TO DEATH.

looks like you have some research to do.

 now, what nurse/patient ratio, exactly would GUARANTEE that no mistakes would be made, that no patient would be neglected, that no patient would be given the wrong medication, or the wrong dosage, or that patient wouldn't have the wrong limb amputated?

what ratio would GUARANTEE that a room full of highly educated, highly paid medical professionals who have proceedures in place to prevent such things, still wouldn't leave a surgical instrument inside some unlucky patient?

what ratio would GUARANTEE that no patient would be charged $100.00 for an aspirin?

in other words, what ratio would MAKE HEALTH CARE BETTER? by the way, who's going to pick up the tab?

There is no reason Cajun. If you could ever get them to tell the truth you would get answers like

"I just started to get depressed thinking abou thow I would have to cancel all those cool vacations to like the nude beaches and I wouldn't be able to like hang out with the girls every weekend, and, I'm just like so depressed so that is hurting my health".

It's pretty much the same as what that florida girl did, her's was just a late, late, late term abortion.