Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Do you eat meat? While we can never be 100% certain, science tells us that the fetus wouldn't be able to feel pain in any way similar to that of a fully formed human. The reason I bring other animals into the discussion at all is because a fetus' nervous system is THAT underdeveloped.

Animals feel pain too, but I don't place any animal's life above that of a human/fetus, so the connection isn't as relevant to me.

I've had the opportunity to kill animals with my own hands for meat, so I'm not entirely distanced from what it means to take life. It's important to me that death (animal or fetus) is as quick and painless as possible.

[DubaiSis]

Here's how I see it.

All pregnancies should be between 2 consenting, non-related fully educated adults who are in a committed and stable relationship. Neither adult would be a drug, tobacco or alcohol user and the mother would know upon first day of first missed period that she is pregnant and would seek medical attention immediately. After 9 months she would go to the hospital and give birth to a perfectly healthy and happy baby and due to her insurance there would be no bill upon departure.

Great. So how many errors come into play there? Yes, I would prefer no late term abortions happen, and yes, it seems retarded that a woman would wait this long to do something so traumatizing to mother, child and society. Yes, I would prefer that at this late stage she would give birth to the baby and give it up for adoption (if it's viable, SOMEBODY will want it, even if it's a preemy). But there are sooooo many scenarios where you can justify this horrific process (late term abortion, not what this freak doctor did) that it should not be illegal. However, good counseling should coincide.

Let's face it, this is not happening to the 17 year old prom queen who's afraid to tell for fear of getting kicked off the cheer leading squad. These women are in utterly desperate situations and they need support and guidance, not crucifixion.

This doctor, however? Put him in prison and let the rest of the population know what he did. The death penalty is too good for this guy.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

This doctor, however? Put him in prison and let the rest of the population know what he did. The death penalty is too good for this guy.

Why? Many posters don't believe he did anything wrong. Accordingly, it is a fetus until it exits the birth canal so it does not have the right to life. It is not protected in it's personage. Oh yeah, I forgot, the adult died. He might be a hero if that had not happened.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Why? Many posters don't believe he did anything wrong. Accordingly, it is a fetus until it exits the birth canal so it does not have the right to life. It is not protected in it's personage. Oh yeah, I forgot, the adult died. He might be a hero if that had not happened.

I haven't seen one person post that they don't think he did anything wrong.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Why? Many posters don't believe he did anything wrong. Accordingly, it is a fetus until it exits the birth canal so it does not have the right to life. It is not protected in it's personage. Oh yeah, I forgot, the adult died. He might be a hero if that had not happened.

WTF are you talking about? You're trolling pretty hard here, Glenn.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

WTF are you talking about? You're trolling pretty hard here, Glenn.

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.

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".

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."

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.

[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.

[Alumiyum]

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.

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".

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."

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.

That's not logical at all. This man did not just perform abortions but murdered babies that had been born and alive for several minutes on their own. He also, for instance, kept body parts in jars.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but you are making leaps that are fragile at best. No one here has supported what this man did. Believing women have a right to abortion does not mean supporting this "doctor's" actions.

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.

This isn't about convincing people to change their views. Abortion is a controversial topic and I think it's obvious no one expects to change another person's mind on a message board. However, if you wish others to respect your right to an opinion, have the decency to respect their right. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, either, and certainly not by referring to anyone who supports a woman's right to choose as "ilk".

[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.

[KSig RC]

Any attempt to call a fetus a "person" with full Constitutional rights at any point prior to the point of viability is relying on a definition of "person" that inherently requires a conceptual 'spirit' or other God-imbued or endowed essence to define a human being.

Now, from a point of law, that's just not appropriate. Staunch Conservatives should be lining up to support an open interpretation of law, one that supports individual freedoms and separates Church and State, just as the Framers intended - but some aren't. Hm. Weird. It's almost like cries for "individual responsibility" or "state's rights" or "American values" are performed by both sides out of convenience.

Just like people have a right to proselytize no matter how annoying it may be to me, there's just no way to use a religious definition of a "person" in any sense.

Is it viable outside of the womb? If yes, abortion should not be allowed. For this reason, the Philly doctor appears to be a legitimate murderer. If the fetus is not, you can choose your own adventure here - and good luck to you, but let's ensure we're not casting stones.

[Drolefille]

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.

Seriously, troll harder. You're not even reading the posts your replying to or your first sentence would actually make sense. LOL at the "keeping you from posting" comment. You're right, we can't keep madmax from posting either. That doesn't make you worthwhile.

Also, lolz at quoting Umbridge in your siggy and then expecting us to take you seriously. So you're totally frodo, right?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[Drolefille]

A follow up to the original story:
AP on Google

When Davida Johnson walked into Dr. Kermit Gosnell's clinic to get an abortion in 2001, she saw what she described as dazed women sitting in dirty, bloodstained recliners. As the abortion got under way, she had a change of heart — but claims she was forced by the doctor to continue.

"I said, 'I don't want to do this,' and he smacked me. They tied my hands and arms down and gave me more medication," Johnson told The Associated Press.

Johnson, then 21, had a 3-year-old daughter when she became pregnant again. She said she first went to Planned Parenthood in downtown Philadelphia but was frightened away by protesters.

"The picketers out there, they just scared me half to death," Johnson, now 30, recalled this week.

Someone sent her to Gosnell's West Philadelphia clinic, at the Women's Medical Society, saying anti-abortion protesters wouldn't be a problem there. She said she paid him $400 cash.

Read the rest, and if you think that the only reason people complain here is because he was "illegal" you're an idiot. It is precisely the things that made him illegal that we are revolted by.

And another story, this time about the House GOP.
Mother Jones

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

WTF Republicans? It's not rape if she didn't fight back? It's not rape if it's "just" statutory. Go to hell.