Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[aephi alum]

The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.

[honeychile]

I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.

While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.

I don't think there's a line you can set where it is murder as long as the child requires the mother to survive, honestly. Particularly when, as I said before, most late term abortions are due to serious genetic or other problems that often would result in an infant who would die fairly quickly. If you ban late term abortions, women who are desperate will go to quacks like this. I think we need to have even late term abortions be legal, yet try to make them rare through education and access to health care. And as long as you have a limit, such as 24 weeks or 22 weeks, then unscrupulous individuals will either delay women from seeking legal, safe abortions prior to the cut-off, or prey on those desperate enough to go to this sort of horror.

And I'm rather thrilled the Catholic Church doesn't make laws, enough said on that.

Originally Posted by honeychile

I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.

While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.

Super premies surviving is still the exception rather than the rule. 22 weeks is now being considered 'viable' when the fetus isn't even fully formed, the organs aren't all developed. Now you're talking about a LOT of NICU care for essentially orphans. It is easy to say it should be done for any individual infant, but a lot harder to advocate it as a policy. Ideally the child would be born, much later, and be taken care of. But if a mother does not want that, I don't believe you can force her to give birth to a baby that would only live if it were on life support.

I'm confused about what you're saying about killing a child here though, are you talking about a live birth where a child is then killed (which is murder) or something else?

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't think there's a line you can set where it is murder as long as the child requires the mother to survive, honestly. Particularly when, as I said before, most late term abortions are due to serious genetic or other problems that often would result in an infant who would die fairly quickly. If you ban late term abortions, women who are desperate will go to quacks like this. I think we need to have even late term abortions be legal, yet try to make them rare through education and access to health care. And as long as you have a limit, such as 24 weeks or 22 weeks, then unscrupulous individuals will either delay women from seeking legal, safe abortions prior to the cut-off, or prey on those desperate enough to go to this sort of horror.

And I'm rather thrilled the Catholic Church doesn't make laws, enough said on that.


Super premies surviving is still the exception rather than the rule. 22 weeks is now being considered 'viable' when the fetus isn't even fully formed, the organs aren't all developed. Now you're talking about a LOT of NICU care for essentially orphans. It is easy to say it should be done for any individual infant, but a lot harder to advocate it as a policy. Ideally the child would be born, much later, and be taken care of. But if a mother does not want that, I don't believe you can force her to give birth to a baby that would only live if it were on life support.

I'm confused about what you're saying about killing a child here though, are you talking about a live birth where a child is then killed (which is murder) or something else?

And these wouldn't survive either without medical devices and care.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.

While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.

You're mixing two issues here. While I agree with you that this case is horrific, comparing the decision to treat or not treat a severely premature baby with a partial birth abortion is fallacious. Caring parents can reasonably make the decision NOT to resuscitate a severely premature baby. That doesn't mean the pregnancy was "unwanted." Also, women who are choosing to have late term abortions are not having them because they just couldn't be bothered to do it earlier, "so what the hell." I don't think that there are any methods that leave infants to die of exposure.

Anyway, if you need to have a late term abortion, there are more humane ways to do this than what this man was doing. He was basically pithing these babies like you would a rat. I'm disturbed by his thought process. There are legitimate reasons for late term abortions, but luckily they are rare and many women still choose not to have them. But....that is their choice.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.

While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.

I hope I'm reading you wrong because I don't see how you can be pro-life and feel that one child should get care over another based on whether they are "wanted" or "unwanted." And I'm pro-choice.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I hope I'm reading you wrong because I don't see how you can be pro-life and feel that one child should get care over another based on whether they are "wanted" or "unwanted." And I'm pro-choice.

I think she is saying that in the cases of abortion the 'infant' gets no care, which has a whole host of other problems besides the ones you mentioned. Making the decision to put a super-premie or premie on life support is a big decision one way or the other, even for a child who is very much wanted. Not everyone chooses extraordinary care for anyone in that situation, even an infant.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.

This is an emotional topic for many but let's keep THIS case in perspective. According to the news reports, these babies were born alive and then were killed by the doctor.

Also it's all about beliefs. Some do not believe that a fetus is a baby - a fetus being one that can't survive outside the womb without the assistance of medical devices and care or has no chance at all of surviving period.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.

My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.

That being said the things this "doctor" and "clinic" did are sickening beyond belief. I just do not believe the babies that were murdered (because IMO some of these babies were blatantly murdered, from the little I've read...I'm not squeamish but I couldn't make myself read all of the details on this case) were the only victims. I do hope this "doctor" is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Anyway, if you need to have a late term abortion, there are more humane ways to do this than what this man was doing. He was basically pithing these babies like you would a rat. I'm disturbed by his thought process. There are legitimate reasons for late term abortions, but luckily they are rare and many women still choose not to have them. But....that is their choice.

The bolded is very well said.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

And these wouldn't survive either without medical devices and care.

Precisely, I hesitate to get even close to suggesting that a premie shouldn't get that care, because that's not really what I'm saying, but a policy that encourages the births of super-premies is going to be a very expensive one on top of all of the other troublesome aspects of it.

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.

Something else to consider is a chromosomal, genetic, or other abnormality that will result in a child who will die, will suffer greatly, or the parent could not take care of. I feel like a bit of a broken record on this but I maintain that most women who abort at 5+ months never thought that they would or could do so, but have come to that decision after a lot of weighing of options. It's pretty common to 'other' people who make choices out of our experience, and while the women in this situation were 'other' from us, many women who seek out late term abortions are college educated, middle class, and wouldn't be out of place at any social event that any GCer would attend. It's not just about poverty or being a victim, sometimes it's just about making the best decision for themselves, their families (because many also have other children too), and even, they believe, making the best choice for the unborn child.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Precisely, I hesitate to get even close to suggesting that a premie shouldn't get that care, because that's not really what I'm saying, but a policy that encourages the births of super-premies is going to be a very expensive one on top of all of the other troublesome aspects of it.

Something else to consider is a chromosomal, genetic, or other abnormality that will result in a child who will die, will suffer greatly, or the parent could not take care of. I feel like a bit of a broken record on this but I maintain that most women who abort at 5+ months never thought that they would or could do so, but have come to that decision after a lot of weighing of options. It's pretty common to 'other' people who make choices out of our experience, and while the women in this situation were 'other' from us, many women who seek out late term abortions are college educated, middle class, and wouldn't be out of place at any social event that any GCer would attend. It's not just about poverty or being a victim, sometimes it's just about making the best decision for themselves, their families (because many also have other children too), and even, they believe, making the best choice for the unborn child.

I agree. I envy no woman or couple who has to make that choice, but I certainly understand why some make the decision under the circumstances you describe.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I agree, add in the lack of access to reliable birth control that the woman can control herself and the problem compounds- condoms are all well and good IF he agrees to use them and IF he uses them right and IF he lets you buy them in the first place - pills are more expensive, or require insurance as well as regular doctor's visits, yet more hurdles. IUDs require a doctor's care at least for insertion as well as follow up if something goes wrong and education about maintenance, etc.

Bodily autonomy is something many of us take for granted because we can afford to. Or because we've never had it violated. The idea that someone can as easily seek an abortion at 3 months as at 6 involves a lot of assumptions about education, transportation, income, non-abusive/controlling households, and so on.

It's certainly not black and white. As I've said I've never had to make that choice and I hope I'm never faced with it but I do know women that have for various reasons and in some states/situations it is difficult even for college age+ women with reasonable financial resources to obtain an abortion at 3 months. I can't imagine how hard it is for women without the education or financial ability (not to mention the other complications you mention). That is why I do not believe the babies were the only victims in this case. Though what this "doctor" did was disgusting.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I am not Glenn and I have been on this board for quite a while. I don't expect you to have to agree with me but I say what I say and mean what I say. I am pro life because the baby is always the innocent one and not necessarily the adult.

One does not need to be new to be a troll. You are TROLLING. You're trying to get a rise out of people. Since it's quiet at work though, I'll be happy to point out what a blathering idiot you are if you think anyone in this thread is either actively or passively condoning cutting the spinal cord of an infant with scissors.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My point is that many on this board do not find late term abortion or abortion as a whole a problem. The problem is that the Dr. was performing "illegal" abortions instead of "legal" ones. So yes by inference the condemnation is that he wasn't doing anything wrong in the abortions only that they were "illegal".

You mean these posts? These posts that say that what the doctor did was disgusting and he was wrong to do it?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is beyond disturbing and is precisely why I support pretty much anything that provides women with full access to healthcare.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

This case is disgusting. I'm pro-choice, but this procedure is not reasonable.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

That's the thing--regardless of where one lies on the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum, everyone can agree that the manner in which these procedures occurred were barbaric to say the least.

Add to that the fact that this was done after viability, in situations where it was probably NOT to save the life of a mother, increases the ridiculousness of this situation.

Originally Posted by agzg

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that the type of procedures the "doctor" was performing should be legal or were not disgusting, more that his victims included both the babies delivered and the mothers, no matter how willing the participant. His alleged actions were reprehensible and if found guilty he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Either way - I don't think there are many who advocate any of these tactics (scissors? I honestly had to check to make sure it wasn't a tabloid/internet invention) - it's almost like a bad movie or video game. Unconscionable on every level, and sort of hard to even integrate into a rational mindset. Regardless of the social and legal forces that drove this into existence, what this 'clinic' did was horrible.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Infants should not be murdered. A fetus is a fetus until birth/delivery. The term murder doesn't apply to abortion although it does apply to what this non-doctor did. Feel free to say 'kill' if you like, but murder's one of those words that means what it means, not what you want it to mean.

Oh yes, these posts are all about how great it is to kill babies. In fact, you know what? I bet these posters actually advocate for killing babies up to their first birthday. After all, isn't that juuuuuuust like having an abortion?

Oh, it's not? Great. Glad to have that cleared up.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Here is a previous quote:

"Most late-term abortions are due to issues like Down's Syndrome or genetic problems that would result in the infant's death shortly after birth. They are not because suzy couldn't "choose" not to have sex. But even if they are, I'd rather women have access to the care than do this, because this is the result when abortion is illegal or when access is restricted."

How about you call Drole out specifically instead of being passive aggressive?

Here, I pulled the quote for you. Don't say I never gave you anything.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Most late-term abortions are due to issues like Down's Syndrome or genetic problems that would result in the infant's death shortly after birth. They are not because suzy couldn't "choose" not to have sex. But even if they are, I'd rather women have access to the care than do this, because this is the result when abortion is illegal or when access is restricted.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So one supports the right of a woman to have a late term abortion but not by this man. The concern was obviously not for the children but rather the adult.

I support the rights of women to seek reproductive healthcare, and I support the rights of those women and their doctors to make LEGAL decisions about their healthcare behind closed doors. The contents of a woman's uterus are none of your business. Unless you'd like me to inform you each time I have my period and how heavy my flow is? I'd be happy to do that.

Furthermore, if you don't have any concern for actual adults in addition to having concern for the health and welfare of children, I'd say that's pretty fucked up.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

How about you call Drole out specifically instead of being passive aggressive?

I support the rights of women to seek reproductive healthcare, and I support the rights of those women and their doctors to make LEGAL decisions about their healthcare behind closed doors. The contents of a woman's uterus are none of your business. Unless you'd like me to inform you each time I have my period and how heavy my flow is? I'd be happy to do that.

Furthermore, if you don't have any concern for actual adults in addition to having concern for the health and welfare of children, I'd say that's pretty fucked up.

I will call you out or anyone else if I so chose. If you put your own "reproductive" rights over that of the child then shame on you. Killing children in the name of "reproductive" rights is messed up. You do not see it as a child and I do. The adult is not the innocent one here. I disagree with you and your ilk so live with it. You will not convince me you are right and you will not keep me from posting what I believe.

Bottom line you believe it is acceptable to kill the unborn as long as it is done by in a "legal" manor. I do not unless the life of the mother is at stake. She then has the right to chose as it is a life vs. a life. I wish for us to err on the side of the innocent child more than the adult.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I will call you out or anyone else if I so chose. If you put your own "reproductive" rights over that of the child then shame on you. Killing children in the name of "reproductive" rights is messed up. You do not see it as a child and I do. The adult is not the innocent one here. I disagree with you and your ilk so live with it. You will not convince me you are right and you will not keep me from posting what I believe.

Bottom line you believe it is acceptable to kill the unborn as long as it is done by in a "legal" manor. I do not unless the life of the mother is at stake. She then has the right to chose as it is a life vs. a life. I wish for us to err on the side of the innocent child more than the adult.

Have fun.

By the way, I had my period two weeks ago, so I'll have one again in a couple of weeks. My flow was pretty light this time, which is odd because it's usually moderate. As a result, it lasted two full days longer than normal.

Unfortunately, the egg died as a result of my period. Funeral arrangements will be made. By the way, since you're so interested in telling a person what she should do in regards to her uterus, I'm running low on tampons. What brand would you suggest? I'd really hate to commit a moral error by buying the wrong brand.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

Have fun.

By the way, I had my period two weeks ago, so I'll have one again in a couple of weeks. My flow was pretty light this time, which is odd because it's usually moderate. As a result, it lasted two full days longer than normal.

Unfortunately, the egg died as a result of my period. Funeral arrangements will be made. By the way, since you're so interested in telling a person what she should do in regards to her uterus, I'm running low on tampons. What brand would you suggest? I'd really hate to commit a moral error by buying the wrong brand.

So your unfertilized egg had become a human life. This happened during your period. Let's call Ripley's and get you in there. I am amazed at the miracle. Last time I checked that had only happened once before.

I am so sad for your loss.