Monday, February 12, 2007

Busy day

Today, while searching the internet for more information about criminal abortionist Dr. Lucy Hagenow, I stumbled upon a motherlode: the Homicide in Chicago Interactive Database.

I did a search for "abortion", and have found at least fifteen pages of cases, ten cases per page.

My wrist is getting sore already from all the typing.

I add each case to the Cemetery of Choice as I add it to the web page. I've got my work cut out for me.

13 comments:

Tlaloc said...

There are actually 33 pages. But since the dates of the allegations run from 1874 to 1930 this is just more of the useless out of data stuff.

Furthermore notice that they are ALLEGATIONS not convictions. See here:

http://homicide.northwestern.edu/database/10536/?page=1

This is the last "crime" on the list (from 1930 because they are arranged chrnologically). The abortionist was found "not guilty."

GrannyGrump said...

You personally consider it totally "useless" to know how these women died. I beg to differ. The old "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

And like I said before, I don't have some sort of sorter on for which abortion deaths I document. I don't say, "She died too long ago for us to learn anything from what happened to her." I don't say, "Well, her death doesn't prove a point I'm trying to make so I'll blow it off."

I have no idea why my calling is to document abortion deaths. But as the years have gone by it's been clear that this is what my job is. I stopped fighting it long ago and just do it.

Tlaloc said...

"The old "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.""

That'd carry more weight Christina if you weren't advocating we go back to the very situation that cost these women their lives.



"And like I said before, I don't have some sort of sorter on for which abortion deaths I document. I don't say, "She died too long ago for us to learn anything from what happened to her." I don't say, "Well, her death doesn't prove a point I'm trying to make so I'll blow it off.""

But you should. Without some attempt to discern meaningful data from meaningless information (for a particular question at issue) you can never move beyond data to *information.* We could add to the list every woman who died of sepsis but does that really address the question? No. So rightly we might discard that data and focus on what really does matter.

Otherwise it seems that all you are trying to do is muddy the water with a bunch of meaningless bits of data that bear no connection to the matter.



"I have no idea why my calling is to document abortion deaths. But as the years have gone by it's been clear that this is what my job is. I stopped fighting it long ago and just do it."

Life's too short to let yourself get railroaded into spending so much time an energy on a project without knowing why.

GrannyGrump said...

Yeah, Tlaloc, I could so something wildly productive, like argue with you! ;)

Tlaloc said...

We'd argue a lot less if you didn't have your "project". :)

We could be talking about kittens.

JacqueFromTexas said...

That'd carry more weight Christina if you weren't advocating we go back to the very situation that cost these women their lives.

This is a shining example of missing the point. For almost every illegal abortion death, Christina has a legal abortion death, thus suggesting that abortion killed this women- legal or no. How many "Safe and Legal" anniversary stories do you need to read before this finally hits home?

GrannyGrump said...

Actually, Jacque, there will eventually be more illegal abortions at the Cemetery of Choice if only because abortion was illegal for so long, and most of that time was before antibiotics, when people were dropping dead from all manner of things that we could easily treat now.

My thing is that I don't play pick and choose. If I learn about an abortion death, I document it. I don't just pick ones that I think prove a particular point.

You'd think, though, that Tlaloc and other supporters of legalization would rejoice that the pre-legalization deaths were being documented. It gives them more anecdotes to cite.

Tlaloc said...

"How many "Safe and Legal" anniversary stories do you need to read before this finally hits home?"

Enough to convince me that more than a tiny fraction of the legal abortions end in anything but total success. Try hitting say the 1% mark for instance.

Do you know of 40 abortions every year that ended badly?

Do you know of 4?

At what point do you recognize that having a failure rate far below 1% is not exactly calamatous. If the rate of death equaled that of modern childbirth we should see 4 deaths *every year* from abortion (.1% mortality). Do we? No we don't.

Christina's "cemetery of choice" has around 450 entries on it (based on a quick hand count on my part). But that's including abortions going back at least to 1903.

Tlaloc said...

"You'd think, though, that Tlaloc and other supporters of legalization would rejoice that the pre-legalization deaths were being documented. It gives them more anecdotes to cite."

What is the point in documenting them when tyou go on to pretend they support your point?

You document these deaths and then continue to want to go back to that period.

It's like someone documenting the black death and at the same time suggesting we do away with modern medicine because some people die of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

It makes no sense.

GrannyGrump said...

Go back to when abortions were limited to women who had no ambivalence, who absolutely and utterly wanted their babies to die, rather than having abortions sold to ambivalent women?

Go back to fewer women being subjected to the risks every year?

Go back to where quackery was being taken seriously?

Call me retrograde, but fewer abortions, and those few done on the women who actually were determined to seek them out, and abortionists actually assuming some of the risk instead of the woman being the only one risking anything.... Sounds good to me.

I'm not, after all, advocating that we abandon blood transfusions, antibiotics, and all the other things that were addressing the abortion mortality problem.

We were getting the problem under control. But that wasn't good enough for the people who live for abortion. They wanted social approval for their own abortions, and didn't care who their agenda hurt.

We allegedly need legalized abortion "For the women!" (always with a little catch in the voice.) But the Silent No More women don't count. Marla Cardamone, who didn't want an abortion and got browbeaten into it, doesn't count.

The only women who seem to matter are the ones who can abort without a qualm. Everybody else can suffer and even die for all the abortion lobby cares. I don't see a tear for Stacy Zallie, for Christin Gilbert, for anybody who lacks their unfettered and unqualified enthusiasm for treating their own unborn children like vermin.

Tlaloc said...

"Go back to when abortions were limited to women who had no ambivalence, who absolutely and utterly wanted their babies to die, rather than having abortions sold to ambivalent women?"

Which is only desirable if you predicate the argument on abortion being bad.



"Go back to fewer women being subjected to the risks every year?"

*Maybe* fewer women (only true if you can show that abortion is riskier than giving birth which is an iffy proposition) but you are forcing them to take much greater risks.



"Go back to where quackery was being taken seriously?"

Taken seriously by being totally ignored? How does that work, Christina? Nobody licenses or monitors the competence of illegal abortionists. People do license and monitor the competence of legal abortionists. Some oversite is better than none. Feel free to tell me where in this logic chain you disagree.



"I'm not, after all, advocating that we abandon blood transfusions, antibiotics, and all the other things that were addressing the abortion mortality problem."

BUT YOU ARE! You absolutely are trying to force abortions to be done under the worst conditions and with inadequate supplies. That's what criminalizing it does.



"We were getting the problem under control."

Only if you define the problem as "women are not being treated as breeders." The problem here is that you have no respect for a woman being able to decide for herself if she should be a mother. To decide for herself if her body gets used that way.




"They wanted social approval for their own abortions, and didn't care who their agenda hurt."

Yeah, damn them for wanting doctors to perform medical procedures under sterile conditions! Don't they know they are second class citizens?

I'm sorry that people getting quality health care is "hurtful" to the pro-life side, Christina.



"We allegedly need legalized abortion "For the women!" (always with a little catch in the voice.) But the Silent No More women don't count."

Of course they count. If they don't want an abortion they should be free to refuse. But when they try to take the right away from other women they need to shut up because they are huge hypocrites.

Furthermore since "Silent No More" is, you know, just two women they are kind of outnumbered about 50 million to one by the women who have had abortions. Oh wait, that's right the "Silent No More" women have ALSO had abortions, they just hate to see others get the same care they themselves have profitted from.



"Marla Cardamone, who didn't want an abortion and got browbeaten into it, doesn't count."

The pro-choice movement is just that: "pro-choice."



" The only women who seem to matter are the ones who can abort without a qualm. Everybody else can suffer and even die for all the abortion lobby cares."

Bull. Everyone else is fine to go their own way. Notice it is NEVER the pro-choice movement trying to force something on the pro-lifers. Only the reverse. We can live and let live. You can't. You can't accept that we might not agree with you and seek to dominate and force your superstititous views on everyone else.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear which side is the aggressor here, Christina.

JacqueFromTexas said...

"Silent No More" women have ALSO had abortions, they just hate to see others get the same care they themselves have profitted from.

I would challenge you to find one Silent No More woman that "profitted" at all from her abortion.

We can live and let live. You can't.

Oh, the irony in your word choice! Were you oblivious to it or was that planned?

GrannyGrump said...

Jacque, there are some people who can't get their brains around the idea that not all women dance gaily out of the abortion clinic, delighted at the thought that their child is laying in shreds in a pathology lab. The idea of coming to your senses and realizing the horror of what you've done just can't get through their heads.

It's akin to drunks thinking MADD is a bunch of kill-joys who experienced for themselves the benefits of drunk driving but can't abide the idea of anybody else having fun.