Abortion To OB Gyn residents it remains "scraping it out"

[romishpopishorganist]

Well the OP is that as well, but I was going easy on him.

Yes, this you claimed but didn't explain how.

Care to explain how?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I don't believe anything said by the OP. Sorry, but an unreliable source is just that, unreliable. This whole thread is a nothing burger with a large side order of fantasy fries and BS sauce.

So typical of abortion supporters.

When they are confronted with facts they don't like--just claim they are from an unreliable source, then say "I win!"

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Do you have anything meaningful or intelligent to add to the discussion?

Your comments above do not really answer anything.

What was there to answer? The OP asked no questions at all. All it does is whine about the various terms that have been used for abortion.

 

[BMS]

What was there to answer? The OP asked no questions at all. All it does is whine about the various terms that have been used for abortion.

So can you come up with a reliable source to support your claim? So far all you have given has been totally unreliable

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So can you come up with a reliable source to support your claim? So far all you have given has been totally unreliable

To support what claim? Do you even make sense? What claim do you imagine I've made that needs to be supported?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Pro-deathers preen themselves on their cluelessness.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

The OP highlights the changing of wording by pro-choice and we note how pro-choicers are happy with different wording to suit the them but not happy to accept wording we choose.
The entity remains the same and the abortion procedure remains the same.

Dr Nathanson a Founder of NARAL and strong promoter of legalizing abortion.

 

[Temujin]

Do you have anything meaningful or intelligent to add to the discussion?

Your comments above do not really answer anything.

Thank you. That means that they match perfectly with the person I am replying to. When there is a meaningful and intelligent discussion to be had, please tag me and I will join in. This thread isn't it.

 

[Temujin]

So typical of abortion supporters.

When they are confronted with facts they don't like--just claim they are from an unreliable source, then say "I win!"

This is an unreliable source. No one wins.

 

[BMS]

To support what claim? Do you even make sense? What claim do you imagine I've made that needs to be supported?

So still nothing.

 

[BMS]

This is an unreliable source. No one wins.

Its reliable your sources are all unreliable because they are all activist ones.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is an unreliable source. No one wins.

Just keep proving my point why don't you?

Whenever you are confronted with facts you don't like, just claim the source is unreliable. You know, if that works for you, it works for me.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Thank you. That means that they match perfectly with the person I am replying to. When there is a meaningful and intelligent discussion to be had, please tag me and I will join in. This thread isn't it.

Then why are you replying?

 

[Temujin]

Then why are you replying?

Because, as my reply points out, the thread is meaningless and the OP unreliable. If I had not pointed this out to you, you might have thought that great insights were to be had here. As you now know, you would be wrong to think this. We can both of us do better than bicker over a piece of trash.

 

[Temujin]

Just keep proving my point why don't you?

Whenever you are confronted with facts you don't like, just claim the source is unreliable. You know, if that works for you, it works for me.

What facts? Seriously, what in the OP is a fact? And why would I not like it? It Is totally vacuous. You might be used to accepting vacuity as "facts" that your opponents "don't like". You need to tell the difference between disapproval and mockery. What is happening here is the latter.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So still nothing.

Again, what claim have I made that you imagine I need to support?

 

[BMS]

Again, what claim have I made that you imagine I need to support?

So still nothing

 

[BMS]

What facts? Seriously, what in the OP is a fact?

Well that he was a medical doctor. Do you dispute that as fact? Does McGill University where he got his qualification exist? Is that a fact?
Did they used to use the term “therapeutic abortion”; which after Blackmun became “elective abortion.” ? Can you support the idea that this isnt so apart from Temujin doesnt think so?

Have you not used “termination of pregnancy,”?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So still nothing

So you can't identify a single claim I made that I need to support. Gotcha.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Wales troll says this is unreliable

The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist turned pro-life:

“On Operating Room schedules, the pre-Blackmun term that was written down was “therapeutic abortion”; after Blackmun it became “elective abortion.” Now it is “termination of pregnancy,” the ultimate euphemism, almost Huxleyan in its finesse. To the gynecology residents, it remains “scraping it out.”

Bernard Nathanson, with Richard Ostling, Aborting America (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1979) 177

Dr Nathanson ran 70,000 abortions thru his clinic.