Thursday, March 20, 2008

Nad: still mad

Via Bad Science, it seems that Nadine has replied to the criticism of her Hand of Hope post. Whilst Ben, Bloggerheads and Unity address this rather neatly, do you know what? I think I'll fly solo on this one.
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.

Fucking hellski.
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.


Anonymous said...


No point in arguing with nurses.

They know best ergo you are wrong.


Little Black Sambo said...

"Letting the mother choose (within certain reasonable restrictions) what happens to her own body". A pregnancy is not simply something that "happens" to her body, and the child-to-be is a genetically distinct individual. A libertarian ought to have some concern for those least able to protect themselves, rather than giving power of life and death to the mother.

Anonymous said...

Really excellent post.

I've got far more respect for the anti-abortion position that just believes it's an absolute moral wrong than someone who will lie to try and show that they've got facts on their side.

Vindico said...

This is a really satisfying post. Definitely above your usual supreme average. Just like taking a big crap you've been storing up all day and the sheer relief afterwards. You stick it to the batty cow!

Anonymous said...

What an immensely hysterical and hypocritical post. The great libertarian owns his own body but an unborn child does not, according to DK, own hers.

The unborn child has a totally unique human DNA quite distinct from his/her mother's. The child is alive and growing (otherwise there would be no "need" for an abortion).

The womb is merely a suitable first environment for the growing baby. Just as the earth is a suitable environment for the born.

Some abortionists are in it for the money, and some are in it for an irresponsible fuck. And some aren't grown up enough to accept that humans are viviparous.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I would just like to spell something out to you all: a foetus is not a human being.

Now, if you all think that it is a human being at the moment of conception, then you are an idiot.

I can see how you might defend it under a libertarian model -- as Ron Paul or Worstall do, for instance -- but I happen to disagree.

Because a fertilised egg is nt a human being and therefore has no rights. OK?


Newmania said...

I agree with Little Black Sambo , what about the rights of the unborn child DK ? Libertarians , as you well know , have a bit of history about forgetting that children have to be protected from the Liberty of adults...

Nadine’s language may have been a bit clumsy but there is a ‘pro-abortion-ist ‘lobby in that abortion is a political term as well as a medical one and has a resonance to the women’s movement especially in the US beyond the issue of life . For some women the right to kill your unborn child is a Nietzschean act off self avowal and the child is that which the will to higher consciousness must destroy . They are , in other words , every bit as loopy as ultra religious people .

If we err on the side of caution and restrict abortion a little more in line with latest thinking on viability is that not a sensible compromise and that’s all Nadine wants.

As so often bourgeois ‘rights’ become a prison inflicted on the working class whose victim child mothers never asked to be “Liberated” and whose right to be treated as more than disposable fucks by their peers has been eroded .

“You should have kept your knickers on then…” is a perfectly good answer in my book as to make such views un-sayable infantilises adult women .

Anonymous said...

Yes and no, Devil.

There is plenty of evidence to corroborate the fact that 2nd trimester foetus's are born alive (following abortion) and may take several hours to die - according to guidelines doctors are meant to inject the foetal heart with potassium (if it's older than 21 weeks) to expedite this messy process.

Theoretically, those babies who are born alive following abortion, and die from 'lack of care' may create a legal minefield, according to obstetric consultant, Shantala Vadeyar (if medical staff ddecide not to intervene in such circumstances).

Abortion is not just about womens rights either, at least not in the mind of Nashville musician Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempt to abort her - CEMACH estimate 50 babies, annually, survive abortion attempts in the UK.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I have self-censored my comment because it was a little angry.

First up, please don't think that I haven't thought about the "rights of the unborn child". I have, so don't patronise me.

Second, and related, I am a consequentialist, not a rights libertarian.

Third, what I have written in the post above is not a post about abortion: what I have written above is a post about how Nadine Dorries is deliberately lying to justify her position on abortion.

As Ben Goldacre, Bookdrunk, Unity and others have pointed out, many times, is that Nadine Dorries has lied, consistently, throughout the entire debate.

And here she is, lying again. She was called out for lying and instead of admitting that she was mistaken (or apologising for lying), she has decided to continue promulgating the lie to the extent that she has even accused the surgeon who did the fucking procedure of lying.

That is the issue here; not abortion. For what it's worth, I think that abortion terms are about right; but I am not interested in discussing it in detail, at the moment, beyond saying that anyone who thinks that it is a human being, with all of the full rights of a human being, at the moment of conception is a fuckwit.


Anonymous said...

Fair enough Devil, I fully understand the focus of your piece, and for what it's worth I agree that the ex-nurse is spouting absolute garbage - she may be even more repugnant than Rose Gibb (and that's not a sentence I thought I would be using very often).

Anonymous said...

Oh how I wish women evolved as marsupials and whores could form a line of their month-old embryos under the scattered clothes on the floor.

It would allow female-centred males their final accolade of never being criticised for arguing it's mummy's right and nothing to do with daddy's.

What a nation of Socialist Intellectuals. No one finishes what they do.

Lucille said...


In America, you have to have a license to own a gun or drive a car, but anyone can have a baby. And you know what happens to those babies a lot of the time....they are abused, they are beaten and burned and starved and they die after suffering horribly. They are raped by the men on the family and the moms just let it go. (I digress, but I have a point...My 7 yr. old neice was raped and murdered. The Doctors said that being raped by a man, meant that had Marcy lived, she would not have been able to have children or enjoy sex because the monster had destoyed all of that. We would have wanted Marcy to live whatever the cost...but my point is, that young children are raped by family members every day. and how they suffer!!!!!)

If a woman doesn't think she wants to be bothered with a child, or they aren't strong enough to raise a child by herself or for all the gods sakes, she is poor...who is to tell her she can't have an abortion. Ask your firefighters and your policemen what they
see in their day to day responses. And it isn't only poor people who abuse their children.

I would rather have a dozen "Humans" die in the womb, then respond to one more abused baby or child.

I am not against life.. I am pro life. I just know their are certain people who should never be allowed to give birth..

If the anti-abortionists want to do some good, instead of mouthing off, they should be finding funding for some unwed mother's homes again. There are millions of people around the world who would love to adopt a baby. You want to do something, get the money. You'd help the moms out and the parents who want to raise a baby. Solutions people.!!!!

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest....

The Remittance Man said...

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[with anasthetic]?

Perhaps because having the mother writhing and screaming in pain is a bit distracting when you're trying to fiddle around in her innards.

Dear God! If this is the best in logical argument a Tory can develop then the nation's doomed to a good few more decades of NuLabour misrule.

Anonymous said...

Lucille, close your legs.

Neal Asher said...

We are still desperately in need of of a clear definition of what a human being is and why it should have rights. Just simply saying 'because it is human' is not enough. Personally I don't see why a human fetus with the mental capacity of a jellyfish should have more rights than the intelligent animal we regularly turn into bacon.

If the anti-abortion(ist) view had been accepted dogma across the world we'd be two-deep in people now and everyone's quality of life would be no better than that of a battery hen.

Anonymous said...

DK said:
"I would just like to spell something out to you all: a foetus is not a human being."

You are wrong DK, an unborn child is human - the DNA says so. And it is alive - otherwise there would be no "problem".

As for Nadine Dorries she seems to me to be doing excellent work, beset, as she is, by hysterical and selfish abortionists. She is not perfect, any more than you or I, but she beats us for dedication, humanity and compassion, hands down.

Now for Lucille's shout: there is a registered charity called LIFE, based in Leamington Spa, that does exactly as she requires - looks after and provides accomodation for mother and baby. There are many childless couples in the UK desperate to adopt babies saved from abortion.

Jones said...

I declare this thread hijacked by the frothing anti-abortionists (And may God bless all who sail on it).

Come on guys. The discussion is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion, because that's the point where a womans right to choose collides with the "Does DNA alone make a human?" viewpoint and religious dogmatism, it's about the lies told to illegitimately (Sorry, only word that fits) further a viewpoint in that discussion.

The real point is that story Nadine puts forward as truth is a gross distortion of the facts and fundementally untrue. It detracts rather than adds to the evidence under discussion in the broader sense. My only other concern is that I hope whoever took a camera into an operating theatre ensured it was properly cleaned beforehand.

El Draque said...

It's an emotive subject! And I confess to a foot in both camps. I recall in about 1970 that my mother had an anti-abortion book, featuring claims that doctors killed babies that were crying, and that the bodies were sold to be made into soap. The book was proved to be fiction, pure propaganda. I told her this; she shrugged and said, "I'm sure things like that are happening." The ideologically-driven persons on each side are blind to reason, you see.
My personal instinct is anti-abortion - a baby should be left to grow and be born, and adopted if the mother doesn't want it. But a clump of undifferentiated cells - that is, for the first few weeks - is not really a baby; it is a foetus. (At school in about 1965, being a logical chap, I asked a visiting vicar why, if a foetus is a living human being, we don't have funeral services for miscarriages. No answer, predictably).
So there's a time when the foetus becomes a baby. After that time, no abortion, please.
When? I'd say some time in the first 8 - 12 weeks. Others will differ.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with someone who is against legalised abortion describing its promoters as 'the pro-abortionist lobby'? DK, you are guilty of far worse hyperbole. You are also guilty of the same devilry when later in the article you describe such people as being part of the 'the anti-abortion lobby'!

FWIW I am in favour of legalised abortion.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"What's wrong with someone who is against legalised abortion describing its promoters as 'the pro-abortionist lobby'?"

Simple, cookie; I am not pro-abortion. I don't think that abortion, per se, is a good thing.

I am, however, aware that it is necessary that it happens and that it is a good thing that young women are able to have abortions when necessary in a safe, clean environment that minimises suffering for both mother and foetus.


Thud said...

I have been considering joining the libertarian party but after this post I don't think I great loss I'm sure but I feel a foetus has the same right to life as me and most here don't.

Trixy said...

Well done DK, excellent post. Mad Nad is living up to her name once again. As for this 'pro-abortion' line, I've never once heard some woman say they were going to get knocked up because they wanted to have an abortion. Or someone who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy saying "yippee! Now I can have that abortion I've always wanted!"

And a clump of cells is not a human. They cannot have the same rights as that of a child or a fully grown adult because they are not a fully functioning humans. One way to demonstrate this I think is to ask if a 10 week old foetus would survive outside the womb. Women like me don't want to have children and we'd rather eliminate the risk of getting pregnant permanently but until then then the right to control our own lives should be more important than the swivel-eyed rantings of sanctimonious cunts.

Little Black Sambo said...

"One way to demonstrate this I think is to ask if a 10 week old foetus would survive outside the womb."
You might as well ask whether a year-old child would survive out of doors without parental care. The 10 week old foetus is not designed to survive outside, so it should be left where it belongs till the proper time.

Anonymous said...

So, after that painfully tedious analysis of Nadine Dorries' writing, you show off your scientific credentials with the following pronouncement: "a foetus is not a human being". So there was a time when you were on this planet without being a human being? When did that stop - if ever? Is there some process of libertarian ensoulment that we can see in an ultrasound?

And if you say that a foetus is equivalent to a gamete, I'll believe that when you give birth from your testicles.

I've often asked on this Web site how libertarians can justify, according to their own theory, limiting their freedom when it comes to violence against others. This posting shows that apparently they don't.

Anonymous said...


"What an immensely hysterical and hypocritical post. The great libertarian owns his own body but an unborn child does not, according to DK, own hers."

If the 'unborn child' owns 'her' body then you will have no problem with mother and child going their separate ways so that they can both get on with their busy lives.

Jones said...

"What an immensely hysterical and hypocritical post. The great libertarian owns his own body but an unborn child does not, according to DK, own hers."

Utter nonsense. If that is the case, all unborn children should be C-Sectioned as soon as 'viable' and given the vote, to take this piece of erroneous logic to it's ultimate conclusion. Ownership of whatever kind, comes with a complex web of rights and responsiblities, both real and implied.

Newmania said...

What good thread , I only wish that Jones had expanded on how he/she sees the relation between rights and responsibilites at each stage . Little Black Sambo gets my vote for the most sense per word.

Anonymous said...

little black sambo wrote:

"You might as well ask whether a year-old child would survive out of doors without parental care. "

And the answer is yes it can. This happens all the time. A year-old child can even survive when both parents are dead.

Another difference between a fetus and a year old child is that you can leave a year old child in the living room while you go answer the door.

It is really not hard for most of us to tell the difference between a fetus and a year old child.

Anonymous said...

Argh. I notice that somebody chucked in the story of Gianna Jessen again.
I wish you'd do a post on her - I've done a little research (OK, a couple of hours' googling), and the only solid evidence there is to support her story is a single piece of paper certifying that she was born after a failed abortion, with no further details. The whole rest of her story - being 'burned' by a saline injection in the womb, the 'abortion doctor' being forced to sign her birth certificate (so where is that birth certificate?) etc all appear to be completely unverified.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...