Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by agzg

What do you mean here? Just that it's amazing that some people still don't have access, either financially or geographically?

No - although that also sucks.

I was going to send you a PM so that I didn't hijack the thread too much but it seems to be turned off - drop me a line if you want a more full explanation. I may have been speaking out of turn, or taking a lane-change for the thread.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Are you seriously saying that a VIABLE HUMAN should legally be able to be murdered?


I have two hotbutton issues. Abortion is one of them.

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.

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I interpreted her post to mean that because it's difficult for these women to get legal abortions they were going to this doctor to get illegal ones.

This is pretty much the only reason why someone would go to this sort of doctor, because for whatever reason - late term, abuse, money, immigration status, outright fear or shame - they could not go to a licensed provider.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

My response was more directed to the part about "severe restrictions on when they can be performed", and then her adding the comment about partial-birth...I can't even being myself to call it abortion, since you're not even TECHNICALLY aborting a pregnancy.

If you abort, you abort. Late term abortions are not something that people generally do for shits and giggles in the first place, so I'm really not getting where your rage was coming from. Think about what it would take for YOU to be in a place where you would go see a doc like this one. Why would you assume these women are any different.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Ok, yeah, I had a real problem with that too especially with him aborting fetuses close to term.

That he had no conscience doing it and that some women went that long before having this done really turned my stomach.

As others have said, this isn't something people do because they're HAPPY about it. This is a desperation measure.

Originally Posted by agzg

They might have had valid reasons for going that long - they couldn't get an abortion at reputable places, they couldn't afford it, this was a last resort, things of that nature.

It's unfortunate that those who may actually need these procedures more often (lower socioeconomic status and all the sexual and opportunity-based implications that may have) usually have the hardest time being able to access them in safe and reputable conditions.

You are awesome.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

If you can use Shady McQuack at 8 months, you could have used him at 3.

Either way, there is NO valid reason for aborting/murdering a viable baby. Period.

And you want your CHOICE? You got it, and you CHOSE to get nekkid. Choice made. That's my version of pro-choice.

Nice, keep your opinions out of my uterus and we're all good. But god there is so much wrong with what you said here that I can't even begin. If this were any other medical procedure no one would think of blaming the victims, but here noooooo those damn sluts should have kept their legs closed, right?

Why the hell would you think that this is something people do just because they think it's fun? If abortion was safe, legal, covered by national health insurance and didn't involve people being harassed by protesters, do you think anyone would EVER have to go to a doc like this? Hell no.

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I have two hotbutton issues. Abortion is one of them.

AF, I totally agree with you.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

AF, I totally agree with you.

Yep.

[honeychile]

There aren't the proper words for this. I know so many couples who would love to have a baby of any ethnic background, and end up going to another country to get them - and these people were allowing a baby to be born just so they could kill the poor thing? At what point does a person lose enough of his or her conscience to stab a baby to death? Then keep jars of the babies' feet or other parts? If this isn't considered Hitleresque, I don't know what would be.

My mother told me a lot of stories of many women she knew who had illegal abortions, and the most horrifying one doesn't hold a candle to this band of morally starved individuals. I don't care how anyone feels about abortion, this was flat out murder, multiplied several times over. The death penalty and lethal injection would be much too civilized for these poor excuses for human beings.

[KSUViolet06]

Don't eat before you read the grand jury reports. Ugh.

[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?

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.