Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Eileen Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Eileen's Journal
Posted by Eileen in Choice
Sat Aug 11th 2007, 04:34 PM
The August issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has an excellent editorial in light of the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court banning a procedure that does not exist and the description of which in the legislation could mean that all abortions except for very early suction curettage are essentially rendered illegal. This was the biggest success for the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) and the greatest setback since before Roe.

What is a physician to do in order to provide a reasonable standard of care to hir patient ( and contrary to myths a pregnant woman is one patient only)?

I've reproduced the editorial in full on my site rather than get the mods worried about copyright issues. - AJOG Editorial -


As it says - be glad they did not rule in Schiavo.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by Eileen in Religion/Theology
Sun May 21st 2006, 06:48 PM
The theists in this board don't want to make you believe God exists. They don't want to prove to you that God exists.
From a non-theist point of view to do either would be an impossibility.

Their faith is a personal choice and they have their own intelectual reasons to believe that God exists like you have yours of not believing.
I fail to understand what "intellectual reasons" could be forthcoming for belief without reason - which is the real description of faith - particularly religious faith.

Here is what I wrote in another thread. Please, do not take this as an argument to prove that God exists. it is only a reason some people believe there is a God or have reasons to believe at least in a concept of a God:
Actually it is a series of rationalizations to contend with the inevitable cognitive dissonance involved in theism - but anyhow:

Everything, according to an atheist, developed by chance.
Which atheist/non-theist are you talking about? I'm rather fond of Chaos theory which - while random - also has design.

People who believe in God, do admit that beauty, love, art, intelligence, consciousness, conscience,- complex cellular activity - and all creation could emanate from inanimate coincidences.
There's no need for theism in order to accept such conjectures - they are quite rational and frequently the objective of the sciences however -:
natural law, the pervasive sense of purpose, the notions of universal justice and morality, - are pie in the sky fairy tales used for control purposes where reason is lacking. There is no such thing as "natural law" because law is the codified consensus of the members of a given society; So called "universal justice" and "universal morality" are also non existent but will vary by geography and temporal epoch. Law, justice, and morality, are products of the society that creates them and idiosyncratic to that society.


But while this is a possibility (not to mention our religious natures) compels us to reject it as a probability.
WHAT "religious natures"? You reject it as a possibility based on nothing reasonable but simply an unfounded superstitious hunch - probability doesn't even enter into the equation.

Design suggests to us a Designer, law a Lawgiver, creation a Creator, intelligence a Source of intelligence, conscience a God.
In other words you fill in the gaps where you cannot think of a reason.

Of course where there is no real design (and that blind watchmaker is a non existent figment of the imagination of people who make up answers for themselves from whole cloth); and where the whole of society is the lawgiver; and the point before the singularity is undefined and undefinable; and the source of intelligence is experience and neurological interactions (and perhaps heredity); and conscience is the voice of the social consensus which is integrated into our being by osmosis; why do we need to believe in fairy tales?

There are two possible explanations for creation: that everything comes from chance and coincidence, or from design and purpose.

This is a false dichotomy (and so common in theistic thought - try Pascal's Wager). A third possibility of course is that there is insufficient information available to us to make such claims; or that we are currently insuficiently advanced intellectually to put all of the available conjectures on the table; or that the point before the singularity is, and will remain, undefined. To accept that last one you must be willing to live with non-answers, and the theist would rather make up answers than do that.

The choice is between nonsense and sense.
On this dichotomy we mostly agree - although there are also other alternatives, making this also a false dichotomy.

To a believer, if there is no God, one cannot speak of sense in life, or of good and evil, or of ultimate purpose.
Of course they can be discussed - but they will require something other than superstitious beliefs to make them rational thoughts.

This things would be mere delusions created by our minds to deny that all is anarchic and meaningless.
Actually it is the addition of a sky-fairy into such philosophic searching that makes it meaningless - and as for anarchic, that's reality - what's wrong with that?

But the moment you affirm that these non-physical aspects of life posses an objective reality, you are implicitly affirming the existence of God. From where else these non-physical realities derive?
I think I've already answered this point. It really depends on what you see as "objective reality" and whether what you think is an objective reality even exists or is a figment of an overactive imagination nurtured by group insanity.

It is okay to not believe there is a God because who the hell can prove that God exists or not? But you cannot dismiss other people for believing in God unless you did not put to much thought into the subject.
It's not lack of thought that causes me to dismiss theism, but sufficient exploration and thought to conclude that while the null hypothesis is not provable the probability of theistic existence is so incredulous that it is not worth further examination.


Eileen
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by Eileen in Choice
Sat May 20th 2006, 02:38 PM
-WaPo- Abortion Foes Want RU-486 Pill Pulled -

*The effort focuses on the deaths in recent years of four to eight young women who had taken the medication, and especially the four deaths that involved a common but rarely fatal bacterium, Clostridium sordelli . A congressional subcommittee has scheduled a hearing today on what it called "the unsafe characteristics of RU-486."

But research into those lethal infections has unearthed new information that makes it less clear that complications from the abortion pill, sold as Mifeprex, caused the deaths.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have implicated the clostridium bacterium in the deaths of more than a dozen other women after childbirth or miscarriage -- making it unclear whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the abortion pill and the infections.......

....Another scheduled speaker at the hearing is Monty Patterson, father of Holly Patterson. Since she succumbed to a clostridium infection after a medical abortion, her father has pressured federal officials to investigate the risks of RU-486, which he believes should be immediately taken off the market.


Mr Patterson- and the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) as well - would be much further ahead asking their questions of the right people.

The question that needs an answer is "why was your daughter Holly NOT treated as what she actually was, a miscarriage patient". Why, for example, was no D&C performed to eliminate the possibility of retained tissue as a source of her described symptoms. It should be noted that the coroners report did not find that her death was actually caused by the use of the Mifeprex regimen.

We might also ask a similar question where the women who have died post spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and shortly post partum.

Is there a lack of training in emergency room physicians that is leading to these deaths through either misdiagnosis or simply missed symptoms. Or are hospitals "dumping" patients back onto the street with a few analgesics rather than properly evaluating the appropriate care (in Holly's case perhaps an ultrtasound and/or vaginal swab would have prevented her death) and if this is so is it a symptom of a sick system that puts the almighty dollar ahead of patient care far too often. Is it time to recognize what civilized countries have long recognized - that proper medical care, funded and collectively paid for from the public purse, is a right of every citizen.

Mifepristone with a prostaglandin (the RU-486 regimen), induces a miscarriage. From a medical perspective it really makes no difference whether the miscarriage is spontaneous or induced - the outcome and the health contraindications are exactly the same.

If a patient presents at an emergency room and indicates that she has had a miscarriage - either spontaneous or induced - there is a pretty standard treatment and this very often involves a D&C as a precautionary measure in order to remove any possibly retained gestational material which may lead to sepsis and worse. Retained tissue is more frequently seen in medical and spontaneous abortions and less frequent in surgical abortion. At the very least there should be an ultrasound performed to properly diagnose whether that D&C is necessary. While the tissue often is absorbed or passed without incident the fact the patient arrived at the ER in pain should have been sufficient indication that the treatment could not be simply passive i.e. send her back home to "wait and see".

Holly Patterson was sent home. To date NOBODY on the antichoice side has been screaming about the incompetence displayed at a hospital that treated an emergency patient in that way. Whether the physician was morally opposed to abortion or not (and the press releases from ValleyCare Health System in Pleasanton lead me to the belief that they were) there was still a duty to treat this young woman, and physicians do include D&C as a part of their training in their OBS rotation (although the talibornagain would even prevent this minimal training if they could).

Holly was not killed by RU-486 but her death was caused by the incompetence of a hospital and physician that failed to properly treat a miscarriage in the manner appropriate for an accredited hospital emergency department. How many more of the claimed Mifiprex deaths were under the same circumstances?

If the wrong people are being asked the wrong questions then we can expect more of the same and banning one medication will not stop the deaths following spontaneous abortions.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by Eileen in Choice
Wed May 10th 2006, 04:24 PM
Tax Abuse by the Christian Right: Catholic Edition


Catholics for a Free Choice has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging abuse of the 501(c)(3) tax status of Priests for Life, a militant antiabortion group headed by Fr. Frank Pavone.

The action comes as the 2006 campaign season heats up -- and tax abuse by tax-exempt organizations, particularly those of the religious right, are becoming a bigger issue. After years of controversy, last Februrary the IRS announced a major education and enforcement program. The IRS sought to make the matter as plain and simple as possible:
"...all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

*In a press release today, Catholics for a Free Choice, declared that Priests for Life, "has issued a direct challenge to the Internal Revenue Service and started recruiting "volunteers who want to do some concrete work to elect pro-life candidates in 2006.


- MORE -

Let them make whatever claim they want - these bastards are just another Reichwing political party and lobby group combined. It's is time to treat them like the tax evaders they actually are and frog march them into the courts.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by Eileen in Religion/Theology
Mon May 01st 2006, 03:55 PM
Don't let them get to you Goblinmonger.

Keep in mind that the non-theist has, and will always have the high ground. When have you ever heard of somebody being killed in the name of "no dog". Yielding to theists is like putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Remember:

Those who believe absurdities invariably commit atrocities!


Eileen
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by Eileen in Religion/Theology
Wed Apr 12th 2006, 05:34 PM
What does constitute a religion?

I'm really just asking.


That's an easy one.

A religion is a cult with political, economic, or military power

(and a cult is a religion you don't belong to).
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Star
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.