Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[agzg]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

The Black Card trumps the card in the welcome packet. You only receive the BC after years of dedicated service.

It puts you first in line to see your auntie and uncle in Bel Air, or to move on up to the East Side. I'd hold on to that one.

I will work.

I mean, I will work it while I wear fabulous hats (I just saw a catalog full of hats and I'm really really really really really struggling not to pay $200 for a brand new gorgeous hat).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

The Black Card trumps the card in the welcome packet. You only receive the BC after years of dedicated service.

It puts you first in line to see your auntie and uncle in Bel Air, or to move on up to the East Side. I'd hold on to that one.

[KSig RC]

Everyone knows the relevant Black Card is from Amex. Just ask Pusha T. I'm sure he could resize his jpeg so as not to break the frame, too - NICE NERD THREAD DS, JESUS.

It's sad to see yet another abortion thread devolve into a racist mess. Why can't we just talk about killing babies like rational, level-headed people?

Just another thing I can't understand, like the fact that Michael Vick isn't allowed a dog, but Ben Roethlisberger is allowed a fiance.

[knight_shadow]

@ DS1 - That is surely everywhere I want to be.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

A follow up to the original story:
AP on Google

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


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

That is downright fucked up.

[PiKA2001]

I think Whoopi Goldberg wrote that piece of legislation.

ETA-

What I mean is, the belief that statutory rape isn't "really" rape isn't necessarily a Republican belief. There are democrats who think the same as well.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

What I mean is, the belief that statutory rape isn't "really" rape isn't necessarily a Republican belief. There are democrats who think the same as well.

So true, and it's completely fucked up either way.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I think Whoopi Goldberg wrote that piece of legislation.

ETA-

What I mean is, the belief that statutory rape isn't "really" rape isn't necessarily a Republican belief. There are democrats who think the same as well.

Yes, I'm aware that people are really stupid about rape. But who is proposing the bill? House Republicans.

So, that's who I'm blaming.