Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Knowledge is Freedom: How to Abort without a Doctor or Nurse involved

By circletimessquare in Politics
Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

I am about to rip off a blogger. But I do so in the full spirit of her intentions when she posted her words, and I think she would appreciate what I am doing. Because the information she is dispensing is done for the most important of reasons: preserving our freedoms. It's not the first article of this subject matter on this site, but it's certainly more topical now due to recent political threats to our freedoms. And the previous guide was geared at a medical professional, while this guide is aimed at doing the procedure without a doctor or nurse around. In her own words, and serving in proxy as the sentiment of my own thoughts, my new hero says:

I am posting this as information only. Whether anyone chooses to act upon this information is their own concern. I believe in the free exchange of information and ideas. I believe this information has been kept from women for too long, and there is no reason they should not know about a procedure being performed on their own body, and no reason women should be kept in the dark about how to perform it -- especially if someone they know is having their health jeopardized by this law.

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual


If women laid eggs like birds, then the pro-life movement would have a valid point of view. But there is a problem: we are mammals. As such, procreation is something that happens within a woman's body, proceeds for nine months within her body, and then continues for months or years outside her body, attached biologically via nursing, and then legally and socially, she is expected to care for the child through to age 18 years.

Which is all fine and good, in an environment where a woman is financially and emotionally ready to have a child, and even better, has a male companion who is committed to her. But what happens when a child is conceived via force, or via financial or emotional manipulation? Not that women are victims, but neither is sex something that men don't crave and will do anything for. Women enjoy sex as well- and there is the main problem: human beings are ill-equipped to avoid sex.

We are, in fact, primed to want to have sex. It is a driving compulsion of existence, which makes sense evolutionarily, the imperative of procreation and the preservation of our species has made sure that this drive clouds out all other driving forces in our lives, especially when we are young, and our life experiences are unformed and our wisdom is sketchy.

Set against this backdrop, every day, of every year, from the dawn history, unwanted children have been conceived. This happens in every society, from the most conservative towns of Saudi Arabia, to the most Catholic Church-coddled burgs of Latin America. From the ancient days of Egypt, to thousands of years in our future, unwanted children have been, are being, and will be conceived.

This is a simple fact of life.

Allayed against these rocks of reality, come the simpleminded strictures of social conservatives:

  1. Don't have premarital sex. Just don't do it. Easy as that. Despite the fact that your psychology screams for it and your biology is primed and driven to want to have sex, hey, just don't do it. Problem solved, right?
  2. if you conceive a child, have it. Doesn't matter if you were raped, or coerced, or you don't have any money, or your life is unsettled, no problem: just have the kid. Doesn't change your life, right? It's your fault for having sex.
I mean, we all know women conceive children after a night at the disco, then chat on their cell phones with their girlfriends while at the abortion clinic about the next disco they're going to. Women are this callous right? But social conservatives aren't being callous at all to expect a woman to come to full term with a child and then leave it up for adoption, without any emotional attachment to the child whatsoever, right?

The man? Well, he of course is let off scott free in their eyes. It's all the woman's fault, or even if the man is equally guilty in their eyes, they don't seem so eager to punish him for the crime of premarital sex. All of their fire and brimstone is focused on the woman. For all practical purposes, in their eyes, it's all her fault, for she is the only one sentenced to bear a child she does not love. By herself.

I mean, after all, we are talking about a woman, this is all they are good for, they are breeding units. She has no reason or right to think she could have had a better or more economically and emotionally rewarding life by choosing to have a child later, right? This must be compassionate conservativism at work. Then of course, we have to listen to the claims by social concervatives that a fetus in the first trimester is a human life, equal in value to a living breathing child.

Um, no.

Biologically, it's a piece of unsentient protoplasm, a POTENTIAL human life. But then again, the oatmeal I could have eaten this morning is potential human life, had I eaten it.

Freedom is something social conservatives talk about a lot, but do not seem to conceptually understand. Instead of a woman choosing what to do with her body, they tell women how to run their bodies. They are the epitome of the very controlling bloated intrusive governmental largesse they rail so mightily against, but which they represent more than anyone else with their views.

The rest of us know that freedom is more than just a political buzzword. It has meaning. You can't make something illegal and people will just stop doing it. They will still do it, except that behavior labelled as illegal will proceed under conditions and constraints that only make more human suffering. They want to preserve a piece of human protoplasm, and in the name of that, they have no problem forcing poor women to squat with coat hangers and bleed to death. That's an interesting loving and compassionate religious point of view to view a blob as something cherished and holy but the life of a young woman as something disposable.

Because of course, she has the gall to insist that she should decide when she wants to conceive a child, right? Look around you dear compassionate social conservatives. Look at Brazil, at the Philippines, at Mexico, countries in the grip of the Catholic Church. Poor countries, with lots of orphan children roaming the streets, treated like human trash, and lots of large poor families.

Actually, it makes sense, I suppose, in a Machiavellian way: the church stands against abortion, so that they can keep their flocks poor and large and therefore dependent upon the church's charity work and under their sway and control. God forbid good Catholics have small families and god forbid women have freedom to pursue their education instead of embark upon motherhood early, right? Ah the loving compassionate pro-life religious conservatives, I see how they work now. What's a few poor dead teenage girls with coat hangers in their vaginas when we preserve our large ignorant flocks, utterly dependent upon the great high holy church?

How very nice for your power base.

And I say poor teenage girls because don't fool yourselves, it won't be rich girls who will die this way. Why? Well these rich girls in sociallly conservative households get just as pregant before marriage as the poor girls (sorry if I've burst any of your bubbles about sexual behavior among the poor versus the rich: no difference). Except of course, the rich girls "go on vacation for a few months," secretly fly to a more liberal country, and have their abortions there. Then they go back home, and smile and look down at poor girls with large families for being so ignorant in their poverty. How nice for you, hypocritical social conservatives. Keep it in the dark, keep it in shame. How very nice for you that vanity trumps a human conscience for rich social conservatives.

But don't listen to me dear social conservatives, tap your ruby slippers together and close your eyes and be transported to that magical noble cause, where a thousand points of light, thousands of little singing angels, little blobs, waiting to be born, are being saved by your actions. You can safely ignore bitter old me, because I'm out here, dealing with that silly thing called reality. You know, reality: coming to grips with real human nature and how real human behavior plays itself out when it comes to human sexuality. I'm just wacky that way. Close your eyes, cover your ears and say "la la la la la" and just concentrate on your simpleton's fantasies, and I go away.

With recent conservative Supreme Court appointments, and a measure in one state to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, Roe v. Wade looks threatened. The author remains in secret, as her words have been attacked, and she may be personally attacked.

At her "Molly Saves the Day" weblog, the 21-year-old Florida resident uses the pseudonym Molly Blythe. Given the volitility of the abortion debate, she requested that her real name and city of residence not be used in this story.

In an interview, the blogger said South Dakota's recent ban on abortion -- even in cases of rape and incest -- prompted her post, "For the Women of South Dakota: An Abortion Manual." The blogger, who has no medical background, said she has been compiling instructions for several years. She observed an actual abortion, interviewed providers and read medical texts, she said.

She posted directions for a dilation and curettage -- or D and C -- abortion, and plans to next place online the steps for a vacuum aspiration abortion.

"If anyone has a problem with this and they don't think non-doctors should perform medical procedures, there's a simple way to guarantee that won't happen: Make sure Roe v. Wade is not overturned," she said, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Here her words are reproduced, in the spirit of making sure her words are not lost, but in fact spread and are never forgotten, and in the spirit of standing by her and her words and thoughts. We tell her she is not alone in her fight for our rights from those who wish to take away our freedoms in a simpleton's fantasy of ignorance of basic human nature, impoverishing our society and dooming us to mediocrity and ignorance.

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual
I understand that you're probably really angry right now. Maybe you're reading a blog expressing that anger -- the anger that your state thinks it knows better than you what to do with your body. Maybe you're anxiously wondering where the nearest abortion clinic is, now that you will have to leave the state to get to one. If you have a serious medical condition, you might be doubling up on birth control methods, leading to a lot of worry and possibly negative side effects.
But what you need right now isn't the righteous anger the rest of the blogosphere will give you. You need more.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.
They were deceived -- much like you have probably been deceived. An abortion, especially for an early pregnancy, is a relatively easy procedure to perform. And while I know, women of South Dakota, that you never asked for this, now is the time to learn how it is done. There is no reason you should be beholden to doctors -- especially in a state where doctors have been refusing to perform them, forcing the state's only abortion clinic to fly doctors in from elsewhere.
No textbooks or guides existed at that time to help them, and the equipment was hard to find. This is no longer true. For under $2000, any person with the inclination to learn could create a fully functioning abortion setup allowing for both vacuum aspiration and dilation/curettage abortions. If you are careful and diligent, and have a good grasp of a woman's anatomy you will not put anyone's health or life in danger, even if you have not seen one of these procedures performed.
Today, I will discuss dilation and curettage -- what used to be the most common abortion procedure before vacuum aspiration took its place. Vacuum aspiration is an easier method, but sometimes remaining fetal/placental material necessitates doing a "cleanup" D&C anyway, so you should know how to do this procedure first.
DISCLAIMER: I am posting this as information only. Whether anyone chooses to act upon this information is their own concern. I believe in the free exchange of information and ideas. I believe this information has been kept from women for too long, and there is no reason they should not know about a procedure being performed on their own body, and no reason women should be kept in the dark about how to perform it -- especially if someone they know is having their health jeopardized by this law.
Instruments needed and their uses
You will need:
One set of uterine dilators (any equipment may be purchased from numerous websites. If you need assistance in finding this equipment, do not hesitate to email me at molly.blythe@gmail.com)
Vaginal speculum
Pregnancy test
One set of uterine curettes
One pair of uterine forceps
One pair of regular forceps
Sterile bags for medical instruments and medical waste
A course of antibiotics
Sedative medication
Pressure cooker
Container of bleach solution: one part chlorine bleach to 10 parts water
Strong soap
Sterile latex gloves
Water-based lubricant
Maxi pads
Clean plastic sheeting and towels
Exam table
Wet wipes
First, let's talk instruments, before we talk implementation:
Cervical dilators come in many forms. Some hydroscopic dilators work by absorbing moisture from the vagina into the dilator, gradually increasing its diameter until it is workable. However, the "old-fashioned" way is with a set of dilators -- metal instruments of varying sizes. It would probably be best for an illegal practitioner to use these, as they are essentially infinitely reusable as long as they are sterilized between uses. Essentially, the practitioner begins with the smallest instrument and inserts it into the cervix. Then, he or she moves on to the next smallest, and so forth, until the cervix is sufficiently dilated to allow the uterine forceps to be used. This is the easiest part of the abortion, and one that requires very little knowledge other than the placement of the cervix.
Uterine forceps look like a hybrid of a scissor handle and a bird of prey's talon. Their use, once the cervix is dilated enough to allow access to the uterus, is simple: they remove the fetal material from the uterus -- as much as can be removed in this manner.
Curettes are perhaps the most foreign-looking of the implements used. Essentially, they look like small spoons with sharp edges. These are used after the uterine forceps, to make sure the rest of the fetal material and placenta is scraped from the sides of the uterus.
A course of antibiotics is CRUCIAL. The most common cause of death post-illegal abortion is due to infection. When your uterus has been opened up, it is more prone to infection. Do not fool around with this: antibiotics are absolutely necessary post-abortion. Antibiotics can be purchased from Mexican pharmaceutical supply houses for less than $2 per course.
Now that we've discussed the more uncommon instruments, let's move on to discussing the procedure itself.
Procedure
Sterilizing instruments is absolutely critical. The most professional way to sterilize instruments would be with an autoclave -- but this is something to get only if you have an extra few hundred dollars to spend in the name of efficiency. Sterilization is no joke, and nothing to be skimped on, but you can sterilize instruments very well with a household pressure cooker. Ordinary boiling water does not kill all pathogens; while boiling water was the best people could do 100 years ago, it is not the best we can do now. Check your pressure cooker's manual carefully and figure out how much water needs to be placed in it to stay at 250-260 degrees for 30 minutes. Be sure to refer carefully to the manual, or injury and damage to the cooker could result. Place the water and instruments into the pressure cooker and allow it to "cook" them for 30 minutes at the 250-260 temperature. This will steam-sterilize your instruments. If you have an autoclave, lucky you! Follow its operating instructions.
Assuming you have no autoclave, follow the instructions for opening your pressure cooker, then remove the instruments with an already-sterilized pair of ordinary forceps. set them in the sterile bags. Now your instruments are prepared. From now on, be sure to only touch the instruments on the handle side, rather than on the side coming into contact with the cervix and uterus. Wipe down your table with bleach solution, allow it to dry, and then place clean plastic sheeting over it.
Your patient should be naked from the waist down and should have her pubic area shaved. Request that the patient does so the night before. Administer a sedative to the patient long enough before the procedure begins that it will be fully effective during the D&C procedure. Prior to the procedure, conduct an ordinary pregnancy test on the woman. This may seem like a silly step, but pregnancy tests are never 100% accurate, and women have been known to come to abortion clinics and test negative. Ask your patient how long it has been since her last period. If it has been eight weeks or less, the procedure itself will take less than 15 minutes after dilation begins. The length grows, however, until at about 13-14 weeks (the limit for a D&C procedure because of the limited dilation ability of dilators) it will last up to 45 minutes. Honesty is IMPERATIVE, because dishonesty could endanger the woman's health.
Once the patient has "assumed the position" in the stirrups, wipe the vulva and anal areas with separate wet wipes, including the labia majora and minora. Once the patient is clean, lubricate the vagina with water-based lubricant and use the vaginal speculum to open the vagina and examine the cervix (information on how to use a speculum properly is widely available online and in print and does not need to be reprinted here, but please be sure you understand how to use the speculum prior to conducting this procedure).
The cervix is a small, round, smooth-looking muscle at the top of the vaginal canal. Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the female reproductive system prior to performing any procedure such as this. The cervix is the entrance to the uterus. A non-pregnant uterus is only as big as a small pear, but it grows bigger even in the earliest months of pregnancy -- at 8 weeks, it is the size of a peach, and at 14 weeks, the size of a grapefruit. I didn't make up all these fruit-sizing terms, other people did, and I apologize for making anyone uncomfortable whilst eating fruit salad from now on.
It is important to know the approximate size of the uterus because that's where you're headed. Get out your smallest dilator and insert it slowly and gently into the cervix. This hurts -- it's part of why your patient is sedated. Novocaine is sometimes injected to numb the cervix, but when you are just starting, it is probably preferable to stay away from needles entirely. Insert each dilator in turn. Even the largest dilator, as you will notice, doesn't give you very much room -- less than an inch of opening. There's no way you can see into the uterus. From here on out -- this is the scary part -- you will have to operate on feel alone. Don't feel too afraid. Each element in the uterus feels different from the others, and as long as you are careful and understand exactly what the procedure involves at each step, it will not be too difficult.
The first step is to break the membrane holding the fetus inside. You can feel around with the forceps for it. To get an idea of what each part looks like -- and to see the texture so that you understand better how it will feel -- I recommend looking at books with photographs of first trimester fetuses (personal recommendation for its astonishing photographs: A Child is Born), The membrane should be easily broken with the forceps. Depending on how far along the pregnancy is, varying quantities of clear or pinkish fluid may come from the vagina. As you grasp the sac with your forceps, twist it away so that it detaches. You will now need to remove small pieces of fetal material and membrane from the uterus with the forceps. Some of these pieces will be distinctly identifiable as fetal material. Save the material until the end of the procedure on a piece of plastic, so that you can be sure the entire fetus has been removed. If doing this sounds too ethically challenging, remember that fetuses do not have the capacity to feel actual pain until the third trimester. You are not "hurting" it, and it has no awareness, nor the capacity for awareness, that you are extracting it.
This portion of the abortion procedure should not be particularly painful for the patient.
While you are removing fetal material, you will also be removing pieces of placenta. However, because the placenta is attached to the uterine wall -- and because it is the blood source for the baby -- bleeding may begin at this time. It is imperative that if bleeding begins at this point in the procedure, you do NOT stop. Stopping the procedure and attempting to stanch the bleeding will not work. The bleeding will stop on its own once the placenta is totally removed from the uterus. It may be scary, but keep going.
Once you have removed most of the material that is removable, you must move on to curettage. By now you will have felt the walls of the uterus with the forceps, and you must move on to using the spoon-shaped curettes. Find the spot on the uterine wall where placenta still clings -- the curette will make a sound much like metal on metal on a clean uterine wall, but will not make the same scraping sound on a place that still needs material removed. Scrape from the uterine walls, scraping material toward the cervix. Use the same general form of stroke you would use to scoop ice cream, and don't be afraid to scrape fairly hard. Scraping softly could leave tissue behind, and if there's anything you don't want, it's that. The other cue that will inform you the uterus is clean is that the patient will generally report feeling a cramp when the clean uterus is scraped, whereas a scrape of placenta will not feel as painful. Listen to your patient and listen to your curettes.
Once the material is removed from the uterine wall, any excess bleeding will generally slow or stop and it's uterine forceps time again. Take the remaining material out with the forceps. Most pieces of fetal material will come out with a simple tug on the forceps (again, don't be too afraid to use force and put a bit of muscle into it). However, at 13-14 weeks the fetal head may be slightly big to bring out. Pinch it with the forceps and take it out in pieces, as well. Make absolutely sure all bone fragments are removed from the uterus, as well as all other material. If necessary, use the curette again to remove remaining material and repeat the procedure with forceps.
By this point, bleeding should be no more than in a normal period, and likely quite a bit less. If the patient is still bleeding heavily at this point, get her to a hospital -- it means you likely did not curette completely, and the hospital will generally complete the procedure as her life is assuredly in danger.
When you feel the curettage and removal is complete, make sure you examine the fetal material you have already extracted. If you're missing anything obvious -- for instance, a head -- make sure to find and remove it.
Allow your patient to rest comfortably on the table if she wishes, or to get dressed. She will likely have some residual bleeding, so make sure you have maxi pads on hand (I would not risk infection from tampons so soon after the procedure). Give her the course of antibiotics and stress to her how imperative it is that she use them as directed. Make sure that she understands any bleeding or problems means she needs to call 911 immediately. When she is ready, allow her to leave -- if sedated, do not allow her to drive home herself. Follow up in a few days and make sure she is not experiencing much bleeding or pain.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Scoop
o not the first article of this subject matter on this site
o recent political threats to our freedoms
o For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual
o conservati ve Supreme Court appointments
o even in cases of rape and incest
o Roe v. Wade
o The author
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Knowledge is Freedom: How to Abort without a Doctor or Nurse involved | 471 comments (348 topical, 123 editorial, 0 hidden)
I have Questions (none / 1) (#4)
by Eight Star on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 05:23:07 AM EST

1. Can a machine be a person? 2. If so, how would we know if one were? 3. If not, why not? 4. Is a newborn a person? 5. What can justify killing a person? 6. At approximately what point in development is personhood attained? 7. If a fetus is a person, what justifies killing it?

I feel so dirty (3.00 / 5) (#20)
by Herring on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:26:20 AM EST

I agree with cts. It's not an easy thing to admit.

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
A solution, and a practical viewpoint. (2.71 / 14) (#24)
by Kasreyn on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:42:31 AM EST

I've got the solution to this problem, and the problem of deadbeat dads and child support, which is an issue men get worked up over. Ready? Here goes.

Women can have their right to abortion when men can have a right to likewise disavow any responsibility for a child.

Because, on a certain level, that's what abortion is - the woman is making a choice that she has no interest in having a child in her life. That's fine and dandy. So tell me, why is it that a man has no right to make an equivalent choice? Why do so many of my male friends work two jobs to support children they sired when they were young and stupid, children being raised by women they don't care for, children who often live in other states or cities?

Before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not trying to say that men have it as bad as women. At least we don't have to bear the little monsters in our own flesh. Women have the short end of the stick as far as I'm concerned, I'll freely admit it. But fairness demands, in my opinion, that both parents have an equal ability to disavow their responsibility for a child.

And another thing that's been irking me is this attitude that Roe v. Wade somehow invented abortion. It's not like it's anything new. Women have been aborting their babies, or killing their newborns, or deliberately letting them die of neglect, since our species split off from the missing link. Unwanted child? Somehow just doesn't get as much time at the breast as the wanted child, or else the milk mysteriously dries up early. Unwanted child? Oops, I dropped him again, don't know why that keeps happening... Unwanted child? Terrible shame, looks like the mother rolled over on him in her sleep and smothered him. Etcetera.

It's called passive neglect, and it is silently carried out worldwide, in every culture and every historical era. Women - mothers - are the primary caregivers to infants. They hold total control over whether most infants live or die. Please explain to me how you can force a woman to care diligently for a baby she never wanted. "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" is an umbrella term that can conceal a nearly unlimited number of ways in which a woman can rid herself of an unwanted baby, ranging from deliberate infanticide to simple lack of concern for its welfare.

This is the practical side of it: you can't force a woman to want or keep or care for a child. Force her to have it? Fine, she'll just throw it in a dumpster somewhere - there's nothing you can do to prevent it. So why force her to have it? Which is more humane: dying in the womb, as little more than a batch of cells with no developed brain, or dying as an infant that beyond the shadow of a doubt, can feel pain and terror? I don't think it's a really tough question to answer if you have a shred of sense.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Ambivalent... (none / 1) (#25)
by mirleid on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:45:20 AM EST

I can relate to the whole personal freedom and control of one's body argument. I wholeheartedly support it. Having said that:
  • It is repugnant to me to see abortion used as a contraceptive measure (in the same way as a condom or the pill are contraceptive measures). Once is an accident, twice is bad luck, three times means you're stupid or just don't care.
  • Where I come from, if you get some girl pregnant and she decides to carry the baby to term, you are financially responsible. If you refuse to financially support raising the child, the mother can drag you into court and force you to pay (up to and including your employer being asked to dock a percentage of your salary that is then given to the mother). I agree with this (both parents should be responsible). But the flip side is that I have trouble reconciling that enforcement of responsibility with the fact that if the prospective mother decides to have an abortion, the prospective father has no say in this. Another example of this imbalance is the fact that one of the participants in a marriage can get a divorce if the other is proven to be unfaithfull, and have maintenance payments being awarded for the fact that it was the other party's fault, but the wife getting an abortion against the husband's will is not considered to be grounds for divorce on the same level.
I don't really have answers regarding what could be done to fix this. But it has always caused me to feel quite ambivalent wrt the whole abortion debate, for I always had the feeling that the father's role and feelings were always considered secondary and not worthy of attention.

Chickens don't give milk
You completely forgot (2.33 / 3) (#30)
by minerboy on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 07:23:36 AM EST

Disclaimers about the long term effects of abortion on Women, including increased likelyhoods of cervical and breast cancer, and infertillity. It turns out that motherhood actually enhances a womans health.

I find it interesting that you (and Molly) choose to provide only part of the story. Knowledge is power, but incomplete information is propaganda.

The other issue coimpletely absent is the interests of society which can conflict with a women's "rights" - both in terms of population growth, and reduction of dangerous sexual practices. Even where abortion is completely legal, it is in fact wealthier, more intelligent women who have abortions. You and molly encourage killing off the greatest potential of the next generation.

While I would not support the SD version of an anti-abortion law, I do support the abillity of the state to regulate this medical procedure -just as we regulate the use of pharmaceuticals.



i'm sure that (3.00 / 4) (#48)
by wampswillion on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 09:03:41 AM EST

i will catch hell all over town and with lil debbie, but good for you.  i agree with all of this.

-1: R vs W (none / 1) (#52)
by t1ber on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 09:52:32 AM EST

A popular call for either side is that Roe VS Wade is going to be overturned and we're (going to have abortions in the streets|going to see more dead women).

The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has three options:

  1.  It's unconstitutional
  2.  It's constitutional
  3.  It's for the states to decide
Similar to the right to keep and bear arms, there are no states which don't allow the possession of firearms.  With the exception of New Jersey and California (which I think speaks volumes about Camden and LA), almost all the states allow concealed-carry.  But, all the states requirements for concealed-carry and firearms ownership are different.  If we apply the same example to Roe VS Wade (which I think Alito is smart enough to do) or the Prohibition, it makes sense for the courts to go from "it's constitutional" to "it's for the states to decide".

Why?

Because in some ways it's a hotter issue then gun-rights or alcohol-rights because instead of setting limits equally, most people (including Molly) treat is as a woman-issue.  No-one says, "Women can't own guns, or women can't drink", but people do say "women can't get an abortion".  While I think either parent should be able to call for an abortion, the reality of the situation is that pregnancy (and the assumed health risks) are firmly on the woman to deal with.  I notice that Molly doesn't mention the higher incidence of accidental sterilization as a result of scar tissue and simple improper procedure here.  Guys, there's a reason doctors need seven years of college.  I'm going to gloss the issue since there's other posts about it, but the reason why the mortality and sterilization rate is so low is because the doctors are so good at what they do.

But back to Roe VS Wade, I think it really should be a state issue.  You might not like it, but states who have social and religious conservatives as the majority don't want abortion clinics around.  Is it a "right" to have an abortion?  Absolutely not, no more then you have a "right" to get pregnant.  These people are in the camp that if you can conceive naturally, you can have a natural abortion.  The herbologists have this well documented.  People have been doing it like this since before there was surgery.  The other camp is going to say that abortion should be safe, legal, and convenient, but these two groups don't see eye to eye and often don't live together.

Roe VS Wade tries to make a national decision on the issue.  I personally think that you don't have a constitutional right to an abortion, however, I don't agree with the camp that wants to make it unconstitutional either.  I think it should be up to the states (and ultimately the individual who chooses where to live) to decide how they want to handle it.  

I think Molly glosses two important points:

  1.  The Supreme Court has three possible judgments
  2.  The process is surgery and things can and will go wrong.  I view Molly's work as dangerous not because the instructions are lacking, but because she doesn't properly inform people as to what could go wrong and it's clearly got political leanings attached to what should otherwise be a how-to manual.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

You're so .... (2.00 / 2) (#54)
by terryfunk on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 10:04:55 AM EST

smart that I feel like an moronic idiot (which I probably am). Thanks for posting this.

I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

Roe was wrong when it was decided (none / 1) (#72)
by Genderqueer Deathsquad on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 11:27:13 AM EST

And Casey fixed nothing. I personally hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and overturns it.
--
My deepest fear is that I'm Michael Crawford and too crazy to realize it. -- Genderqueer Deathsquad
Abortion (none / 1) (#86)
by cdguru on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 01:55:29 PM EST

The abortion debate unfortunately comes down squarely on one decision: when is a fetus "a baby" and when it is a biological component of the mother? Originally, the Supreme Court decision (or at least one of them) set the marker at 24 weeks. Before that time, it was non-viable and after that it was a baby.

The first point that needs to be made is that this decision point was somewhat arbitrary. Yes, there was some medical knowledge that went into the decision, but even in 1973 there were people that were pretty sure a 24-week fetus could survive outside of the womb. Nobody had done it yet, but that was more a matter of techincal difficultly than anything else. So, the decision at 24 weeks was simply a marker that was put down.

This lasted for quite a while, but somehow later and later term abortions crept into things. The idea of a 38th week "late term abortion" is anything other than killing a baby is just silly.

What is required is a decision point. It probably doesn't matter if this is decided on a state-by-state basis or a just a federal decree. The requirement for everyone is that a decision is made and everyone agrees to live with that. Then we can get on with the meaningful part of deciding where that point is exactly, assuming that 24 weeks can not be restored.

Remember, we are talking about an arbitrary decision point when we consider that the embryo or fetus changes from being "just a blob" or "a potential life" into "a baby". This has to be arbitrary because it is well within the relm of possiblity to take embryos from one pregnant woman and place them into another's uterus. This pretty much kills dead any concept of basing this on "viability" or the limits of medical science. The decision is going to be arbitrary. If you can't live with that, I suggest you stay off the road because most speed limits are just as arbitrary.

I also believe that it is necessary to enforce to the fullest extent violation of this decision point. Prior to that point there is no criminal act, but after that it is murder, plain and simple. You are killing a baby.

Let's for a moment look at what happens should the decision point be .001 seconds after conception. Anything except barrier methods of birth control including the pill, IUD's and a number of other mechanisms would be illegal. Also, it is certainly forseeable that certain actions of the mother resulting in a miscarriage could (and maybe should be) prosecuted. What goes along with this is lack of prenatal care with consequences to the baby - because it is a baby at .001 seconds after conception - is at least child abuse if not assult or murder. Kind of extreme, but .001 seconds is a pretty extreme position to take.

At the other end of the spectrum, placing the decision point at 39 + 52 weeks where the child is a year old is not all that far fetched. Some cultures resisted naming infants until they were a year old, so this is not without precedent. Obviously this would make significant changes in current law and current practice. It would be difficult to sue a OB/GYN for malpractice resulting in the death of an infant. It would also remove any possibility of prosecuting a pregnant woman for drug abuse during pregnancy.

Either extreme is probably out of the question unless you add in the idea of lax enforcement. Lax enforcement is an extremely bad idea because it generates disrespect for all laws and allows (or forces) people to accept arbitrary enforcement.

So the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. I claim that it doesn't really matter where the decision point is made as long at two conditions are met. The first is that it is a "hard" decision point based on measurable facts. The second is that enforcement is sure, swift and severe. Without both of these conditions there is no "law" there is only "the will of the people", "community standards" and arbitrary rules that are at the whim of the police and government. Where we are now is almost as bad - it is nearly arbitrary. The difference between killing a baby (murder) and an abortion is based on how it is done, where it is done and who is doing it. A doctor that removes the brain of nearly full-term baby is performing an abortion whereas if the pregnant woman is in a traffic accident which results in the death of the baby can result in someone being convicted of murder. This is an unacceptable situation.

What is needed as a decision point, a standard that we can all live with. Period. I don't think we can live with extremes, and so I do not believe the decision point will be placed there. But I do not believe we can continue without such a decision point.

You're boorish.... (2.00 / 3) (#87)
by shambles on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 01:57:37 PM EST

...insulting and frankly rather annoying.

You're also right in this instance. +1 FP

People are more important than Truth - Edgar Malroy
Jane (none / 1) (#104)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 05:13:53 PM EST

There was a group which performed illegal abortions before Roe vs. Wade.  It was called Jane.

http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUFeature/feature.html

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

-1, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. (1.00 / 4) (#113)
by Lenticular Array on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:45:33 PM EST


ANONYMIZED
Damn, cts (2.50 / 8) (#143)
by Sgt York on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 07:43:43 PM EST

That really takes you down a few notches in my eyes (I'm sure you're crushed).

I know you can't format worth a damn, so I really don't care about that. But that sucked giant, purple donkey dicks. I've heard more well thought out, reasonable, and convincing pro-abortion arguments from aborted fetuses.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.

+1, despite CTS (2.83 / 6) (#182)
by codejack on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 10:36:30 PM EST

To all of you who are screaming about not having medical experts conduct this procedure: Screw. I personally know women (girls, at the time, really) who used coat-hangars on themselves to abort, when it was legal! What the hell do you think is going to happen when it becomes illegal?

Do none of you understand what it was like before Roe? Folding tables and rusty knives were the least of it. Unwanted pregnancies are scary enough (believe me, I've been involved in 3 of them), why do we need to make it worse? Oh yea, the other problem: The abortion issue only applies to poor women. Rich women have always been able to get a private doctor to do a quiet abortion, even when it was illegal.


Please read before posting.

So, two foetuses are sitting in the trash, (2.50 / 6) (#188)
by Sesquipundalian on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 12:56:07 AM EST

down at the clinic and one foetus says to the other foetus, what a sad, tragic, short little blurt of a life! Why, I've barely lived! What, oh what does it all mean? Alas, I shall never know..

The other foetus goes "Ahhhh, Oh shit! it's a f*cking talking foetus! And it's LOOKIN RIGHT AT ME!".


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
damn it (3.00 / 3) (#200)
by the77x42 on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 02:45:57 AM EST

and i just spent $150 on steel-toed boots for nothing.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Misplaced passion (2.75 / 4) (#205)
by curien on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 04:28:09 AM EST

Set against this backdrop, every day, of every year, from the dawn history, unwanted children have been conceived.

I appreciate your efforts, but I think that if we put as much energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place (better education, easier access to contraceptives, morning-after pills, male birth-control, etc) as we do into protecting our "right" to mop up after the milk is spilt, we'd be a lot better off.

--
We are not the same. I'm an American, and you're a sick asshole.

wo (none / 0) (#214)
by ShiftyStoner on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 05:50:17 AM EST

okay, this shit is intimidating to any woman who would want to abort themselves. And uneccesary. Reading that scared me...

All it takes is a simple injection. Steralised needle and, um, i forget wtf the stuff you inject is called. Anyone?
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

check link (none / 0) (#215)
by ShiftyStoner on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 05:57:31 AM EST

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/whatis2.shtml
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler
If women laid eggs like birds (3.00 / 6) (#220)
by anonymous-66714 on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 07:11:47 AM EST

I would never eat an omlette, just in case.

Re-title: Hacking the Uterus (3.00 / 5) (#227)
by skyknight on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 08:55:30 AM EST

Also, it would have been great if it were less ranty, but hey, it's CTS, so I might just as well wish for a pony.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
+1 FP just because K5 (2.87 / 8) (#242)
by SaintPort on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 04:06:21 PM EST

presents the faqs and lets you decide.

My 2 cents:

Baby in question is much more likely to love you, and walk with you through life, and hold your hand while you pass into the next one, if you do not abort.

An emotional appeal?  Yes, that's how the decision will be made... might as well be love instead of fear and panic.

now I'll probably spend an extra week in Purgatory for voting this up...

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

The next FNH? Will Rusty get car bombed (none / 0) (#251)
by nlscb on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 08:45:51 PM EST

by some Southern Appalachian red neck?

On a more serious, could he be liable for having this on the site if someone died following these instructions. I don't think that he should be liable, but an ambulance chaser probably would not agree with me.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

look at all these null0 dupe +1fps (none / 0) (#253)
by nostalgiphile on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 09:50:24 PM EST

Nice to have so many 'friends', huh, cts?

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
Stop using the term "mothers" (3.00 / 6) (#268)
by Lode Runner on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 04:11:59 AM EST

If you're going to call the thing that gets aborted a "fetus" then you should stop calling the women who carry them "mothers". Maybe "carriers" or "hosts" or something like that would be more appropriate. And yes, I'm aware that a "carrier" could also be a "mother" if she brought some other offspring to term.

WRT to pre-marital abstinence argument (2.83 / 6) (#307)
by LilDebbie on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 02:40:31 PM EST

You mention biology compelling you to have sex as if this were some sort of justification.

My biology compels me to murderous thoughts sometimes. Am I well within my rights as a human being simply following his instincts to act on them?

It's all a fucking playground with you people. Why don't you take some god-damned responsibility for your reproductive organs for once?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Where the smart get mean? (none / 0) (#312)
by loteck on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 03:24:08 PM EST

Where the gullible get trolled.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

I love the simplicity of the abortion issue. (none / 0) (#317)
by killridemedly on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 04:50:13 PM EST

it's human nature vs. human civilization.

other ways (none / 0) (#318)
by Norkakn on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 05:29:23 PM EST

Vitamin C Pennyroyal rue (very dangerous)

What makes a fetus a person? (none / 0) (#327)
by guidoreichstadter on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 09:47:26 PM EST

Is it law that makes a person?

Does a fetus have a spirit or soul that makes them a human person?

Is it a complete genome that makes a fetus a person?

Is it sentience, or the capacity for feeling, that makes a fetus a person? Are fetuses that are not yet developed to the point of sentience non-people?

Is it consciousness that makes a fetus a person? Can it be said that in any meaningful way that a fetus has a sense of self, of its own existence? Human children on average do not show signs of recognizing themselves in a mirror untill around 18 months after birth. Are pre-conscious children and late term fetuses in some way equivalent? Are they morally different than self-aware children?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.

Already have this article (none / 0) (#342)
by tiamat on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:48:17 AM EST

Right here http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/22/20565/6275

CTS you must really hate women. (1.00 / 3) (#377)
by chris at redeeming us on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:28:54 PM EST

I know that the conventional liberal thinking is that people who oppose abortion and the morning after pill hate women.  In fact since most of these people are Christians by extension it's safe to say that Christians hate women and if what I read from your liberal hodge-podge threads here...they also hate blacks, jews, hispanics, and gays.

Sadly, the truth is that real Christians love everyone.  It's just that to really love and care for someone sometimes requires supporting a difficult position.  

As a conservative Christian let me shed some light on the darkness that you are serving.

Abortion is a dangerous procedure as are all surgeries.  Doing it yourself is extremely dangerous.  Likely hundreds of times more dangerous than having a professional do it, which is bad enough.  So because we love women we would rather they don't put themselves in harms way.

Yet it goes further.  There is a life involved.  It's not a seed.  It's a life a human life.  To us all human life at all stages is precious, special and deserving of respect and love.  It's that love that compells us to fight for the babies rights.  The baby is not the father and it is not the mother.  The baby is alive.  The fact that it needs it's mother to survive does not give the mother the right to kill it.  Wanted or unwanted.  The baby is alive and the baby is human.

The people who say abortion is morally justifiable are people who like to draw lines.  "If it's this old then it should be illegal"  Why?  Does a day make a difference?  Conception is the start of life.  An egg is not a human life.  A sperm is not a human life.  An fertilized egg is life. You see we can say that because we understand basic biological science.  

Now there are many reasons why that baby may not make it to birth.  There are many reasons why a baby might die in childhood.  However, us horrible Christians love the children and love the fathers and the mothers...irrespective of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.

It's a hard thing to say but it's because of love not hate.  

Liberal think is that they are saving unwanted babies.  Then with the same breath they say to us Christians that it's mean to make a women take her pregnancy to term because she might become attached and have feelings for her baby.  

I guess that's not really an unwanted baby.  That's just a scared mother.  I agree scared mothers need help.  Being a parent at any age with any financial background can be frightening.

Life is scary but not nearly as scary as not even getting the right to live because some idiots have decided that it's morally justifiable to have you killed before you get a chance to even live.

but I can see where Christians hate here.  Clearly we are all about that and we aren't single minded in our devotion to love everyone in the name of Jesus.

No...I guess I can't see that.

I sure hope no women risk their lives following the procedure here.

-Chris

Transportation (none / 1) (#400)
by Marvaud on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:00:36 AM EST

What a horrible situation. The only thing I could think would be for God's sake if you live in South Dakota either never have sex again or bloody well move away right now. Your president should be ashamed of himself. I'm glad I'm not American.

So much for the baby (1.33 / 6) (#428)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:40:14 PM EST

Not a single mention of the death of the child living in the woman. Way to go CTS.

TBSDY

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה

Hard to empathize (none / 0) (#429)
by skim123 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:31:16 AM EST

We are, in fact, primed to want to have sex. It is a driving compulsion of existence, which makes sense evolutionarily, the imperative of procreation and the preservation of our species has made sure that this drive clouds out all other driving forces in our lives, especially when we are young, and our life experiences are unformed and our wisdom is sketchy.

This is the rhetoric I hear often for unwanted pregnancies, for teen pregnancies, and so forth. But I can't really empathize with these sentiments, and I'm a male with a fairly high labido (just ask my wife). I guess it's just the way I'm wired but there is absolutely, positively no situation in which "passion" could so overtake me not to practice safe sex. Of course it's kind of moot now that I'm married, but before then, no amount of excitement or intoxication could push me to sticking my pecker inside a girl without a rubber.

Am I just that different from others, or do those who make the "we're driven to have sex, goddammit!" claim just lack the responsibility to act like an adult? I tend to think the latter, but then again I'm a pretty cold hearted libertarian.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


Oh great (3.00 / 2) (#438)
by driph on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:02:17 PM EST

What, reams of Natalee Holloway hate email wasn't enough for you guys?

--
Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
Native American Heros (none / 0) (#441)
by circletimessquare on Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 09:08:24 PM EST

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/25/news/top/news02.txt

Tribal leader rallies for abortion clinic on reservation

By Bill Harlan, Journal Staff Writer

Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakota's new abortion ban goes into effect.

"We're working on it," Fire Thunder said in a telephone interview Friday. "This is a free-choice issue. If I were in that situation, I'd want somewhere to go where I'd be taken care of."

The new South Dakota law bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother -- with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Fire Thunder said the state law would not apply to the reservation. "We're a sovereign nation," she said.

The new law is set to go into effect July 1, but a court challenge almost certainly will delay it, and opponents of the law are already gathering signatures to put it on the ballot in November.

Fire Thunder, in fact, is one of 15 co-leaders of the new South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which on Friday announced a statewide campaign to overturn the new law.

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long declined to comment on the proposal, saying he likely would have to write a description of the new law for ballots in November.

Long said that major crimes committed on reservations come under state jurisdiction if they are committed by non-Indians against non-Indians. Other major crimes fall under federal law.

Rapid City attorney Charlie Abourezk, who has experience in Indian law and who has represented tribes and President Fire Thunder, said Indian doctors might be immune from the new state law if abortions were done on a reservation -- whether the woman was Indian or non-Indian.

University of South Dakota law professor Frank Pommersheim, an expert in Indian law, agreed that Fire Thunder's proposal was "potentially workable" -- especially if doctors were Indians and if the clinic were on Indian trust land.

Pommersheim said licensing could pose a problem. Physicians licensed by the state of South Dakota could face penalties, but he also said tribes might set up their own licensing procedures.

Long said that Indian Health Service physicians don't have to be licensed by South Dakota as long as they have licenses from other jurisdictions.

State Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City, who voted for the new abortion ban, said state legislators did not anticipate a tribal government setting up a clinic. "I think it's poor policy because I don't believe in abortion unless it's to save the life of a mother," Kraus said. "I don't believe abortion is the answer to women's problems."

Fire Thunder's proposal will be moot if South Dakota's new abortion ban never goes into effect. In fact, she predicted a federal court would rule it unconstitutional. But she said if the law did go into effect, she would work to open a clinic, maybe even on land she would donate. "We've got lawyers working on it right now," she said.

Earlier in the week, Fire Thunder told newspaper columnist Tim Giago that she would "personally establish a Planned Parenthood Clinic on my own land."

Planned Parenthood officials "expressed gratitude" for the offer in a news release Friday but said they didn't plan to open a reservation clinic.

"It doesn't have to be Planned Parenthood," Fire Thunder said Friday.

Fire Thunder has worked as a licensed practical nurse, and she has helped set up community health clinics in Los Angeles. She said the tribe could set up its own clinic. "If we choose to do this, we can."

Fire Thunder said such a clinic could serve women "from throughout the region." But she also emphasized the clinic's local effect. "We want to have a viable option closer to home," Fire Thunder said in a written statement issued late Friday afternoon. "Of course, in our culture, children are sacred, but women are sacred too, and somebody who has been victimized by rape or incest should have options."


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

At least be honest... (none / 0) (#464)
by localman on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 04:42:51 AM EST

I'm pro choice because I believe that the harm caused by allowing abortions is less than the harm caused by outlawing them.  But let's not over-empathize here.  The only choices are not, as the article implies 1) don't have sex and 2) keep the baby.  There's also 3) use birth control.

I know, because I've done a lot of fucking and I've not got anyone pregnant.  It works.  It's amazing.  And it's remarkably easy.

Abortion should be legal.  The same way that self defense is legal.  But if you think an abortion isn't a breakdown of society you're lying to yourself.  It's a tragedy, as nearly any woman who has had an abortion will tell you.  And being that it requires so little effort to avoid the situation and is entirely in the hands of the victim... well... grow the hell up and learn to take care of your body.

Cheers.

These types of posts really miss the point. (1.50 / 4) (#466)
by The Real Lord Kano on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:17:49 PM EST

We oppose legal abortion on demand because we believe that it shouldn't be done.

In the same way that I believe that no one should be shooting up black tar heroin.

Would you people be posting instructions on how to turn opium poppies into black tar heroin if you didn't make progress fast enough in your bid to legalize drugs?

If some woman dies because she botched her home abortion, the blame lies with her. Same as with every junkie who overdoses on heroin.

LK

Related article on reproductive freedom (none / 0) (#468)
by runderwo on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:53:58 AM EST

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy032806.shtml

Knowledge is Freedom: How to Abort without a Doctor or Nurse involved | 471 comments (348 topical, 123 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!