I’ve had an amazing response to the ‘Hand of Hope’ blog posted yesterday.
That's right, Nadine: and Custer achieved an "amazing" result at Little Big Horn. Chamberlain got an "amazing response" to his, "I have in my hand..." speech too.
Of course, the pro-abortionist lobby...
Hang on! The what? The "pro-abortionist lobby"? Um, wouldn't "pro-abortion" do, here? Or is Nadine assuming that, as with Islam, if you add an "ist" suffix, it automatically makes the people you are disparaging seem more sinister and evil?
Actually, how about calling us, "pro-choice" because that's what we are. We are in favour of letting the mother choose (within certain reasonable restrictions) what happens to her own body.
And "lobby"? Um, you are the one who is paid to air your views: to lobby, as it were. The rest of us just point and laugh at you for fun. There's no "lobby" here: just people pointing out, in an unpaid capacity, what a credulous bitch you are.
... have attempted to rubbish it and say it is a hoax, which it most definitely is not.
You keep telling yourself that, Nadine.
Some of the pro-abortionists, who know that they can’t get away with calling it a hoax, are saying that the surgeon was operating on the hand,...
Er, no, Nadine. According to the surgeon, who was actually doing the operating, said that he pulled the hand out. If we accept that he was, in fact, operating on a spinal lesion, I think that we can deduce that he was moving the hand out of the way so that he could reach said lesion. After all, that's not a very big hole through which to operate.
... which didn’t reach out; and, that in fact the baby was anesthetised so reaching out would not have been possible.
Two points from me: first is that if the experienced paediatrician operating on the 21 week old baby had anesthetised, then that fact endorses the Professor Anand position that a foetus can feel pain; otherwise why would this doctor, who operates on unborn babies all the time, bother?
I would like you all to bear in mind, at this point, that Nadine claims to have been a nurse. She also claims to have attended at a number of abortions so we can assume that Nadine is actually aware of at least some gynaecological facts.
In which case, this is Nadine lying like a bitch, and not simply being fucking ignorant. Because, as I am sure that Nadine knows, anaesthetic dissolves into the bloodstream and then crosses the placental wall; which means that if the mother is anaethetised (as she was) then so is the fucking foetus. And it takes a lot less anaesthetic to put the foetus out (and too much could kill it) which is why we try to avoid operating on pregnant women except in extremis.
Further, of course, if you are operating on the spine of a foetus, you might want to anaethetise it to stop it wriggling about. Or you might do something untoward like, you know, slicing through the fucking spinal cord, for instance.
Dorries must know all of this, and yet she still persists in lying about it. Nice.
My second point is look at the tear in the uterus. See how jiggered it is just above the hand; and yet the rest of the surgically incised openings are controlled and neat.
"Jiggered", eh? Is that a technical term, Nadine? Well, let's actually turn to someone with some expertise in this field; that's right, give a big hand, ladies and gentlemen, for Dr Ben Goldacre.
My recollection, from assisting in many Caesarean deliveries in my earlier years, is that instead of making a big clean cut into the uterus (not a good idea for obvious reasons, i.e. there’s a baby in there) you make repeated shallow superficial incisions into the uterus, between which you spread the tissues by hand with your fingers, until it eventually (and satisfyingly, surgery’s great fun) opens up.
Y'see, Nadine, muscle is pretty tough stuff, and the uterus is all muscle, baby. Oh, and then you have to get through the endometrium too. Again, Nadine must know this stuff.
Oh, oh, oh, but the next bit—in which Nadine explains why the incision is "jiggered"—is a fucking classic!
This is, in all likelihood, because the hand unexpectedly thrust out. It would be a poor surgeon who allowed the uterine tear to be so messy, and this is no ‘poor’ surgeon.
I am sure that the surgeon, Dr Joseph Bruner (although I suppose, technically, he should be "Mr". In Britain, at least: does that quirk of nomenclature apply in the US?), is thrilled at your compliment but... you fucking what?
Now, I'll admit that there are certain differences between the uterine smooth muscle and the structural muscle that we tend to eat, but has anyone here tried to tear a raw steak? Maybe you'd like to hold a steak up and try to punch through it? It think that you will find either operation really takes an awful lot of effort.
And yet, according to Nadine, a 21 week old foetus has the strength not only to push a hand out but, in doing so, to tear through thick uterine muscle. Well fuck me, if only the surgeon had known it was that easy, he could have dispensed with the scalpel and just torn the thing open, eh? Or possibly he could have asked SuperBaby if he wouldn't mind just punching a hole through.
He is a surgeon, however, who is reported as saying the movement of the hand was ‘controlled’, that he was operating on the hand and the baby was anesthetised.
A point of order, if you please, Nadine: the surgeon never said that he was operating on the hand; what he said was,
“Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it’s me pulling his hand out of the uterus … which is what I did.”
Clear enough for you? Good.
Why would he say that? The pro-choice and pro-life lobbies in America are far more vociferous, and unfortunately violent, than they are in the UK; and one can only guess his reasons.
Riiiight. Although, of course, Nadine, Dr Bruner wasn't actually performing an abortion—he was performing necessary surgury on a child because his parents wanted to keep him, in fact—so I'm really not sure what the anti-abortion lobby has to do with it. In any case, Unity has the figures.
He also knows that there is other compelling evidence. We have the slide show which states the facts from the photographer present in the theatre, Michael Clancy.
Right. So, Nadine, we should believe the photographer who has already made an awful lot of money (and probably won prizes. Apparently pets can, so I'm sure photographers do too) out of this story being as you tell it, rather than the surgeon who did the fucking operation?
Nurse! Could we get some lithium for Ms Dorries, please? The mad old bag is starting to dribble again.
And we have the pictures of, now a big boy, baby Samuel, who gave evidence to Senator Sam Brownback during the partial birth abortion debate in America.
Which actually goes to show how low these pro-life nutbags will go in order to shore up their arguments becaue Samuel wasn't being aborted. Fucking hellski.
Besides, are you telling me that "foetus Samuel" actually remembers everything about his womb experience? Even this operation when he was anaesthetised? What possible meaningful fucking evidence could this boy give, exactly? You tell me, Nadine, you tit.
Finally, don’t listen to me, don’t listen to the pro-abortionists. Trust your own eyes, believe what you see.
OK, I'll tell you what I see: I see a supposed representative of the people of mid-Bedfordshire lying her fucking face off in order to pursue her own personal crusade. As Unity says,
Delusional is a definitely a distinct possibility here but on the whole I’m inclined to the view that she’s just plain flat out lying, a view that I’d happy to defend in any fucking libel court in the country.
Quite. Bugger off, you mad, lying, old bag.