Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[SWTXBelle]

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

This is really, REALLY post hoc and anecdotal, a pretty rough combination.

The purpose of the law isn't "educational" in the strictest and most commonly used sense. "See, the baby has toes!" isn't something used to teach a lesson or instruct the patient about the health of the child - it is clearly intended to push the mother toward keeping the fetus, even though it is not viable by any measurement, and clearly the law allows it to be aborted.

Unless you really think "poll tests" were intended to create a more educated electorate? Or "poll taxes" were viable methods to collect money?

I'm glad your experience was good, but yours was not the intent behind laws like Oklahoma's, and shaming women into keeping an unwanted pregnancy is, well, shameful.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is really, REALLY post hoc and anecdotal, a pretty rough combination.

The purpose of the law isn't "educational" in the strictest and most commonly used sense. "See, the baby has toes!" isn't something used to teach a lesson or instruct the patient about the health of the child - it is clearly intended to push the mother toward keeping the fetus, even though it is not viable by any measurement, and clearly the law allows it to be aborted.

Unless you really think "poll tests" were intended to create a more educated electorate? Or "poll taxes" were viable methods to collect money?

I'm glad your experience was good, but yours was not the intent behind laws like Oklahoma's, and shaming women into keeping an unwanted pregnancy is, well, shameful.

If I were having your fetus I would totally not abort it.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

That's great. But you had the option. That's the key word. Option. Women should have the option to not see the ultrasound prior to an abortion. As Drole said, you aren't required to view your colonoscopy. Again, what is the difference?

As I've said, I've had tests involving visuals that could have resulted in extra procedures (including surgery). I didn't need to see the visuals, and wouldn't have if surgery was the result. The doctor can point and explain all they want, but it doesn't matter that I'm intelligent. I didn't go to medical school, and have to trust that they're correct or get a second opinion from another doctor if I don't. It's completely understandable that some people want to see the visuals. My mother is one of those people, for example. She always wants every single detail before making decisions. I don't. And we should both have the option to go about making our medical decisions in the way we see fit.

[aggieAXO]

Gov. Perry is now proposing to have this type of law passed in Texas. He wants to place it on the "expedited legislation list" to have it passed ASAP. What I found ironic is the next news story talked about all of the budget cuts we will be experiencing and how several elementary schools will be closing with 300 teachers being laid off. We can't even educate the children we have, the ones that are wanted. With the economy and all of the budget cuts in childrens education/programs/hospitals etc.. how do you (specifically those against abortion) propose to pay for the unwanted pregnancies/babies?

On a side note I recommend having a medical advocate if possible to help make decisions for those that do not have any medical knowledge. I actually have a clause in my will that if I am incapcitated, my 2 friends who are also veterinarians will help my mom make medical decisions. I frequently go to Drs appointments with my mother as she has no idea what to ask.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

Backtracking doesn't get you anywhere. That is NOT what you said. Yes, it is appropriate to have your doctor show you your films IF you want to see them, but that is completely different than...

Couldn't tell if you if there was a law - I'd be okay if there were, because no one should be able to sign off on "informed consent" without having seen all relevent information, be it ultrasounds, x-rays or test results. I don't agree that anyone should be "forced" - as in, if they want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na", then you've done all you reasonably can do.

So which is it? Should no one make these decisions without seeing films they aren't qualified to evaluate or can you see them if you feel they help you? I spend a lot of time with my patients discussing their case. MOST find no benefit from seeing their films, and it is not Standard of Care to show them.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

That guy's argument is "Pro-choicers are factually correct but they're ignoring that it is murder." And as pro-choicers are not ignoring anything, but do not consider a fetus to be human life, I'm underwhelmed by his "argument"

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That guy's argument is "Pro-choicers are factually correct but they're ignoring that it is murder." And as pro-choicers are not ignoring anything, but do not consider a fetus to be human life, I'm underwhelmed by his "argument"

Newest logical fallacy - begging the question.

"Not considering a fetus to be human life" does indeed mean abortion wouldn't be murder. But the question of whether or not it is a human life is in no way decided - that is in fact the point on which the two sides disagree. If it isn't a human life, which is apparently your argument,what is it? A non-human life? - Especially once he/she can exist outside of the mother's womb - at that point the parasitic argument is rendered moot.

If abortion is indeed a right, is it an unlimited one? Most rights can be exercised on a sliding scale of sorts - your right to exercise it is limited by its intrusion on others' rights. As even Roe v. Wade made clear - a fetus has more of a right to have his/her right to life considered the further along in development it is. Thus the differences spelled out in the limits of a woman's right to an abortion according to the trimester of development - which to return to my earlier point about ultrasounds would be much easier to deduce with an ultrasound than in trying to figure out when the baby was conceived, especially in an unplanned preganancy. Also, if we start framing the discussion in terms of competing rights, a strong argument can be made that if a woman is indeed in the tiny minority of women whose lives are threatened by a pregnancy her right to live supercedes that of the unborn baby.

I wish the debate weren't being lead by either side's more extreme members. I also think that ultimately the war will be won non-legislatively. But that's another thread.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Newest logical fallacy - begging the question.

"Not considering a fetus to be human life" does indeed mean abortion wouldn't be murder. But the question of whether or not it is a human life is in no way decided - that is in fact the point on which the two sides disagree. If it isn't a human life, which is apparently your argument,what is it? A non-human life? - Especially once he/she can exist outside of the mother's womb - at that point the parasitic argument is rendered moot.

If abortion is indeed a right, is it an unlimited one? Most rights can be exercised on a sliding scale of sorts - your right to exercise it is limited by its intrusion on others' rights. As even Roe v. Wade made clear - a fetus has more of a right to have his/her right to life considered the further along in development it is. Thus the differences spelled out in the limits of a woman's right to an abortion according to the trimester of development - which to return to my earlier point about ultrasounds would be much easier to deduce with an ultrasound than in trying to figure out when the baby was conceived, especially in an unplanned preganancy. Also, if we start framing the discussion in terms of competing rights, a strong argument can be made that if a woman is indeed in the tiny minority of women whose lives are threatened by a pregnancy her right to live supercedes that of the unborn baby.

I wish the debate weren't being lead by either side's more extreme members. I also think that ultimately the war will be won non-legislatively. But that's another thread.

Right. A doctor can look at an ultrasound and make a judgment as to how many weeks the fetus is. What is the reasoning behind FORCING a woman to view an ultrasound before an abortion?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by aggieAXO

An anesthetic could be used IV like propofol followed by beuthanasia. This would be more humane.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The scissors were used, at least in some cases, post-birth, not as an abortive procedure.

Right, but what's a few centimeters really? I don't see any difference between what the doctor did and partial-birth abortion, which wasn't even made criminal until 2003.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Are you also in favor of beheading instead of lethal injection in death penalty cases?

Actually, a better analogy is being beheaded (scissors) versus being drawn and quartered (current procedure). Both are gruesome. Are you unfamiliar with how abortions are accomplished?

I'm with aggieAXO. Woman and fetus should be anesthetized as standard procedure before any abortive procedure.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I completely agree.


Right, but what's a few centimeters really? I don't see any difference between what the doctor did and partial-birth abortion, which wasn't even made criminal until 2003.


Actually, a better analogy is being beheaded (scissors) versus being drawn and quartered (current procedure). Both are gruesome. Are you unfamiliar with how abortions are accomplished?

I'm with aggieAXO. Woman and fetus should be anesthetized as standard procedure before any abortive procedure.

You are assuming a lot of facts by stating that the "nerves have hooked themselves up." People like to believe what they like to believe, but the nervous sytem in a fetus is very, very rudimentary. Even in a newborn, the myelination of the nerves and brain are so incomplete that they rely on us for everything. Why do you think they learn as they age? Because their brain develops the myelin and is able to function and send signals from one cell to the other more efficiently. Just because a nerve is present in a fetus does NOT mean that a 3 month fetus "feels pain" like you or I do. Even if the fetus appears to "recoil from painful stimuli," those can be easily explained by basic reflexes. It's the same as saying that because the nerves are there, a baby should be able to think the same as you or I, be immediately potty trained, go straight to school, etc. It doesn't happen because of the limitations of the nervous system as it matures.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

You are assuming a lot of facts by stating that the "nerves have hooked themselves up." People like to believe what they like to believe, but the nervous sytem in a fetus is very, very rudimentary. Even in a newborn, the myelination of the nerves and brain are so incomplete that they rely on us for everything. Why do you think they learn as they age? Because their brain develops the myelin and is able to function and send signals from one cell to the other more efficiently. Just because a nerve is present in a fetus does NOT mean that a 3 month fetus "feels pain" like you or I do. Even if the fetus appears to "recoil from painful stimuli," those can be easily explained by basic reflexes. It's the same as saying that because the nerves are there, a baby should be able to think the same as you or I, be immediately potty trained, go straight to school, etc. It doesn't happen because of the limitations of the nervous system as it matures.

What did I say to make you think I assumed that fetuses feel pain the same way fully developed bodies do? I'm not concerned about the degree of pain. I'd prefer there to be NO pain. If nerves are basically formed by the 12th week, regardless of how rudimentary, there is sensation.

Can you guarantee to me that there is no pain? If not, I vote to anesthetize.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What did I say to make you think I assumed that fetuses feel pain the same way fully developed bodies do? I'm not concerned about the degree of pain. I'd prefer there to be NO pain. If nerves are basically formed by the 12th week, regardless of how rudimentary, there is sensation.

Can you guarantee to me that there is no pain? If not, I vote to anesthetize.

Can you guarantee the safety of a mother whose fetus is anesthetized? You realize they share a circulatory system through the placenta, right? You're arguing with a medical professional about an ideal but not grounding it in facts.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Newest logical fallacy - begging the question.

In fact, here, the writer was begging the question just as much as the pro-choice writers he referenced.

"

Not considering a fetus to be human life" does indeed mean abortion wouldn't be murder. But the question of whether or not it is a human life is in no way decided - that is in fact the point on which the two sides disagree. If it isn't a human life, which is apparently your argument,what is it? A non-human life? - Especially once he/she can exist outside of the mother's womb - at that point the parasitic argument is rendered moot.

In the same breath you're arguing that people disagree on the premise and then trying to turn and state that one perception of the premise is right. Pro-choice individuals probably have a variety of perspectives on what precisely a human fetus is, whether it is life or not, yet still believe that a woman has the right to choose whether her body will support that fetus. Even at a vague level of viability - something that isn't a clear cut time frame - that fetus is still using her body to live.

If abortion is indeed a right, is it an unlimited one? Most rights can be exercised on a sliding scale of sorts - your right to exercise it is limited by its intrusion on others' rights. As even Roe v. Wade made clear - a fetus has more of a right to have his/her right to life considered the further along in development it is. Thus the differences spelled out in the limits of a woman's right to an abortion according to the trimester of development - which to return to my earlier point about ultrasounds would be much easier to deduce with an ultrasound than in trying to figure out when the baby was conceived, especially in an unplanned preganancy. Also, if we start framing the discussion in terms of competing rights, a strong argument can be made that if a woman is indeed in the tiny minority of women whose lives are threatened by a pregnancy her right to live supercedes that of the unborn baby.

Indeed these are all points of debate. Although I argue that because there is no clear line that one can draw whether by time, health, or others standards that would protect a woman's mental and physical health as well as her right to her own body, that the optimum solution is minimal restrictions along with education for kids and teens, access to general healthcare for all women, and high levels of support for pregnant women who WANT to have children (also no longer accepting slut-shaming in schools, work, or you know, life.) No one's like "YAY MORE ABORTIONS" except for a few hipsters who like to let people know how edgy they are.

I wish the debate weren't being lead by either side's more extreme members. I also think that ultimately the war will be won non-legislatively. But that's another thread.

Non-legislative would be my ideal as well. Also non-public referendum. But I'm a dreamer.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Right, but what's a few centimeters really? I don't see any difference between what the doctor did and partial-birth abortion, which wasn't even made criminal until 2003.

Considering "partial-birth abortion" isn't an actual procedure, which was the major complaint about the bill banning it, and every court in the US would consider THIS murder, I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse to try and make a point. It doesn't suit you.

Actually, a better analogy is being beheaded (scissors) versus being drawn and quartered (current procedure). Both are gruesome. Are you unfamiliar with how abortions are accomplished?

Analogy fail. Contrasting the accepted procedure to one considered inappropriate and gruesome was the point he was making. Accepted procedure isn't inherently good, but you have to actually break it down on medical grounds not because it sounds icky. Snipping the spine of a newborn is murder, plain and simple.

I'm with aggieAXO. Woman and fetus should be anesthetized as standard procedure before any abortive procedure.

Do you think there may be a reason why this isn't done? Medical reason that is.