Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on January 19, 2011, 06:21:53 PM
-
got it from Drudge, evil stuff.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7906881
-
Where can this thread go? The prochoice folks will say this is wrong and awful. The prolife folks will try to lump all abortion doctors into the same category as this.
-
The prolife folks will try to lump all abortion doctors into the same category as this.
Try?
-
Where can this thread go? The prochoice folks will say this is wrong and awful. The prolife folks will try to lump all abortion doctors into the same category as this.
+1. Horrifing terrible and very sad, but not really a subject that can stay kosher around here.
-
The parts about untrained folks practicing medicine with unsterilized equipment is frightening, but so is the ease with which certain terms like "viable" and "murder" are tossed around in reference to an allegedly 6-month-old foetus. The fact is that pro-lifers would declare all embryos and foetuses "viable" if they could, and similarly any abortion would be "murder". The fact that PA apparently has a statute which forbids abortion after 24 months creates legal facts, certainly, but it does not change any actual facts about whether a foetus is viable.
The conditions at his "clinic" may have been squalid, and the keeping of fetuses and body parts frightening, but the only facts of importance I can see are 1) late-term (nominally illegal) abortions; 2) the lack of medical knowledge (I hesitate to say proper medical licensing since so many libertarians object in theory to professional licensing) of the "doctor" and "anesthesiologist"; and 3) the lack of sterilization of equipment.
What about responsibility of the patients? The two dead patients who are referenced were both adults (one 22, the other 41). What about their responsibility to avoid insane doctors? The article strongly implies that just about everyone who visited this "doctor" knew what was going on. How surprised can any of his patients have been that a doc performing illegal abortions may not have had the necessary medical training or may have taken shortcuts with safety and employee qualifications?
All the rest of it is just emotionally-laden rhetoric designed to further inflame an already inflammatory case by conjuring up pictures of Frankenstein's lab, or by appealing to pro-lifers.
-
most interesting "defense" of what happened :facepalm: [barf]
State regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him, and made just five annual inspections, most satisfactory, since the clinic opened in 1979, authorities said. The inspections stopped completely in 1993 because of what prosecutors said was the pro-abortion rights attitude that set in after Democratic Gov. Robert Casey, an abortion foe, left office.
Williams accused state Health Department officials of "utter disregard" for the safety of women undergoing abortion, and said the testimony of agency officials "enraged" the grand jury. But he said he could find no criminal offenses with which they could be charged, in part because too much time has elapsed.
"These officials were far more protective of themselves when they testified before the grand jury. Even (Health Department) lawyers, including the chief counsel, brought private attorneys with them - presumably at government expense," the report said.
-
All the rest of it is just emotionally-laden rhetoric designed to further inflame an already inflammatory case by conjuring up pictures of Frankenstein's lab, or by appealing to pro-lifers.
"There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."
apparently, serial killers really do keep trophies, not just the ones on "Dexter"
Prosecutors said Gosnell instead delivered many of the babies alive.
He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,"
Few if any of the sedated patients knew their babies had been delivered alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were much further along, authorities said.
I have a feeling this ( kind of stuff ) is rampant, I had no idea you could charge that much money-no wonder planned parenthood has so much power, they're freaking wealthy.
-
the grand jury report
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/grandJury_WomensMedical.html
-
I have a feeling this ( kind of stuff ) is rampant, I had no idea you could charge that much money-no wonder planned parenthood has so much power, they're freaking wealthy.
Please don't compare PP with this guy. They provide many more services then just abortions, as well as finacial aid for their patients.
-
Please don't compare PP with this guy. They provide many more services then just abortions, as well as finacial aid for their patients.
I'm not, I just didn't realize you could charge that much ( over a thousand ) for an abortion, & PP does do plenty of them so they have big bucks and the influence that comes with being wealthy.
-
don't forget all the donations, on both sides. =|
-
'm not, I just didn't realize you could charge that much ( over a thousand ) for an abortion, & PP does do plenty of them so they have big bucks and the influence that comes with being wealthy.
you did/are
they don't
how many do they do?
and your train of logic has left the tracks with
" PP does do plenty of them so they have big bucks"
and i'm not a pp fan by any means
-
I'm not, I just didn't realize you could charge that much ( over a thousand ) for an abortion, & PP does do plenty of them so they have big bucks and the influence that comes with being wealthy.
Actually, I don't think they do charge that much. Over a grand sounds like cost for illigal abortions, not legal ones. For an abortion in timely fashion, ie, as soon as you figure out your pregnet, its a really quick simple procedure.
I'll admit, I do question the wisdom of the women that would go to a Dr. like that, and one who didn't go do it before (long before) 24 weeks. Its not rocket science to figure out your pregnet.
-
Nationwide, the cost at health centers ranges from about $350 to $950 for abortion in the first trimester. The cost is usually more for a second-trimester abortion. Costs vary depending on how long you've been pregnant and where you go. Hospitals generally cost more. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.asp)
-
I have a feeling this ( kind of stuff ) is rampant, I had no idea you could charge that much money-no wonder planned parenthood has so much power, they're freaking wealthy.
google Carol Everett
-
The fact is that pro-lifers would declare all embryos and foetuses "viable" if they could, and similarly any abortion would be "murder".
The opposite is true. Pro-lifers tend to push the point of viability back to some point well after birth. The usual anti-abortion view is that viability is not necessary to consider abortion as murder. That only viable fetuses have a right to live is a pro-abortion argument.
-
Big hairy eyeball is watching.
-
The opposite is true. Pro-lifers tend to push the point of viability back to some point well after birth. The usual anti-abortion view is that viability is not necessary to consider abortion as murder. That only viable fetuses have a right to live is a pro-abortion argument.
What do you mean by this?
-
You know, I find an interesting dichotomy in the pro-life/pro-choice argument.
When a child is wanted, we will spare absolutely no expense, and do everything we possibly can in order to try to save the life of that child. We're to the point now that we can have babies that survive being born at 21-22 weeks. Do those children face a huge uphill battle, and is it ridiculously expensive to make sure those children survive? Absolutely. Yet we don't see much argument for just allowing those children to die. So to answer the viability question, I believe that this puts the lower limit at about 21-22 weeks. These are recorded cases, in fact the record for the youngest child to survive is at 21 weeks 5 days, James Elgin Gill, born in 1987 in Canada.
Yet when a child is not wanted, some of the pro-choice folks argue that up until the moment the child is born, it should be legal to terminate the pregnancy. This is clearly the extreme, but is an argument I have personally heard made by pro-choice folks. Actually, that's not truly the extreme. I have occasionally heard the argument (again, personally, first-hand) that a baby isn't really "viable" even after it is born, as it is unable to care or feed itself. It is a very rare argument, true, but it is an argument that I have personally heard made, and was made to attempt to justify partial birth abortions.
So I guess the question I pose is this. (I tend to be a moral absolutist, believing that with very few, very rare exceptions, there is a moral *right* and a moral *wrong*.) Which viewpoint is correct? Are children a priceless asset, deserving any and every expenditure necessary to ensure their survival, or are children nothing more than biological material, fit to be disposed of as the mother sees fit until they are born?
And Mech, I think Fistful meant to type that pro-choicers tend to push the point of viability back, not pro-lifers.
-
I think you'll find that with the pro-choice movement (the ideologues thereof, that is) 'viability' is seen as a side-issue to the actual question. The radical pro-choicer will argue that the woman has the right to determine whether she'll give birth to a baby, and if the foetus/baby needs to be killed for that, well, so be it. The radical pro-lifer will argue that the child has a right to live as soon as it is conceived, even if it's not viable outside the womb. Viability is only a way for society to find a 'compromise' between the two irreconcilable viewpoints.
-
And Mech, I think Fistful meant to type that pro-choicers tend to push the point of viability back, not pro-lifers.
I think it makes perfect sense just as he wrote it. I suggest reading it again.
-
I think it makes perfect sense just as he wrote it. I suggest reading it again.
Okay. I haven't heard that argument before that I know of so I was looking for some clarification.
Pro-lifers tend to push the point of viability back to some point well after birth.
What does "the point of viability" mean in this context? Maybe that is where I am misunderstanding.
-
Okay. I haven't heard that said before so I was looking for some clarification.
And I was merely letting AmbulanceDriver know that I think Fistful did not mistype his own thoughts.
What does "the point of viability" mean in this context? Maybe that is where I am misunderstanding.
It means different things to different people. In general it's the point where a baby is expected to survive.
One argument against late-term abortion is that some babies are being killed in the womb who could survive outside the womb if they were merely allowed to be fully born instead of killed. Since the baby is "viable" at this point, any harm it is doing to the mother (which is the only excuse for having an abortion) could be relieved by a live birth + adoption. The viability of late-term fetuses may be the reasoning behind late-term abortions being illegal.
Thyme took this argument and extended it to claim that if they could, anti-abortionists would claim all fetuses are "viable" back to conception as an argument for making all abortions illegal.
Fistful refuted this claim and claimed that anti-abortionists actually do the opposite. Anti-abortionists make no claim that "viability" is the test for whether an abortion is morally justified. They even go so far as to claim that true viability does not come until some time after birth. After all, a baby is dependent upon adults to stay alive long after it leaves the womb.
-
Okay. That last part is where I got lost. I was trying to figure out what Pro-Life group was okay with killing living babies. I guess I have heard that argument, but wasn't tying it to this discussion. Sometimes I sympathize with my math teachers about them wanting to see the steps I took written out instead of just writing down the answer.
To me the idea of delivering a living baby and killing it is certainly murder, but I can see why the legal language for that can be difficult if late term abortions are legal. That is one reason I dislike them.
-
I have a first edition copy of M Sangers "Women And The New Race" Sanger was the founder of planned parenthood.
In her opinion there were to many "brown skinned people" living in the USA so both abortion and infanticide should be legal ( so we could have a "pure" race in the USA ) .
I was talking to a guy who is "pro choice" he was seriously telling me that infanticide
should be a legal option ( a choice) because babies were not really fully developed humans.
what happened in Philly is an example of the founder of planned parent hoods philosophy.
You can read it for yourself, if you don't believe me by all means please read her book(s)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Initiation (Mildly NSFW, picture of naked pregnant woman shows nipple)
I'm a dirty rotten drunken atheist heathen and I don't think it can be proven otherwise that life doesn't begin at conception. JIMHO, but it's murder at any stage of the pregnancy.
-
Fistful refuted this claim and claimed that anti-abortionists actually do the opposite. Anti-abortionists make no claim that "viability" is the test for whether an abortion is morally justified. They even go so far as to claim that true viability does not come until some time after birth. After all, a baby is dependent upon adults to stay alive long after it leaves the womb.
Yes. It is one way of casting doubt on the criterion of viability.
-
I'm a dirty rotten drunken atheist heathen
you said that like its a bad thing... >:D
-
pro-choice and i'll say this...
I don't have an issue with making late term abortions a no no. It has nothing to do with morality or the question of wiether its alive or not. Because I don't know, and i'm not sure I care.
It comes down to safety, the complications involved and the fact that you have had the time to make that decision already. The option is there, its a time sensitive decision and a women that needs to make it, knows this.
I haven't had an abortion, don't want to have one, but I have had the possibility come up. If your having sex, you need to understand the potential consiquences. Trust me, I made my decision before I even knew one way or another.
-
It's just a slippery slope from late-term abortions to postnatal abortions... (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcastboolits.gunloads.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=4fd69073c200f1775bd26263bec87288a6b34c5d)
--
"Life Begins at Forty" --Sophie Tucker
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Initiation (Mildly NSFW, picture of naked pregnant woman shows nipple)
I'm a dirty rotten drunken atheist heathen and I don't think it can be proven otherwise that life doesn't begin at conception. JIMHO, but it's murder at any stage of the pregnancy.
Just as science may show that there is no scientific explanation for some Biblical claim or belief, science may reinforce other claims or some Biblical tenets.
I think the 20th century scientific advances in biology, genetics, etc. objectively demonstrate that when sperm & egg meet, there is a new human. It is at this point that the previously scientific types wax philosophical about "personhood" and the like.
Some one else wrote something to the effect of, "Don't despise me for my religious beliefs and your fidelity to science and then go off and practice voodoo on the side."
-
The parts about untrained folks practicing medicine with unsterilized equipment is frightening, but so is the ease with which certain terms like "viable" and "murder" are tossed around in reference to an allegedly 6-month-old foetus. The fact is that pro-lifers would declare all embryos and foetuses "viable" if they could, and similarly any abortion would be "murder". The fact that PA apparently has a statute which forbids abortion after 24 months creates legal facts, certainly, but it does not change any actual facts about whether a foetus is viable.
The conditions at his "clinic" may have been squalid, and the keeping of fetuses and body parts frightening, but the only facts of importance I can see are 1) late-term (nominally illegal) abortions; 2) the lack of medical knowledge (I hesitate to say proper medical licensing since so many libertarians object in theory to professional licensing) of the "doctor" and "anesthesiologist"; and 3) the lack of sterilization of equipment.
What about responsibility of the patients? The two dead patients who are referenced were both adults (one 22, the other 41). What about their responsibility to avoid insane doctors? The article strongly implies that just about everyone who visited this "doctor" knew what was going on. How surprised can any of his patients have been that a doc performing illegal abortions may not have had the necessary medical training or may have taken shortcuts with safety and employee qualifications?
All the rest of it is just emotionally-laden rhetoric designed to further inflame an already inflammatory case by conjuring up pictures of Frankenstein's lab, or by appealing to pro-lifers.
Let me just say that I disagree with that.
-
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/19228.html
"...I am pro-choice but this tragedy occurred because the left violently resisted even the least regulatory oversight of even the most extreme late term abortions. The left has made abortion the highest good that trumps every other concern, and the resulting real-world policies border on the surreal.
A school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin but any stranger can legally talk a 13 year old into an abortion at almost any term with no oversight whatsoever. The FDA paternalistically denies adults medicines and procedures that the FDA judges “unsafe” but allows children to decide about invasive medical procedures? WTF?...
...The most disturbing thing I have read is the Philidelphia DAs statement:
“I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said Williams. “But as District Attorney, my job is to carry out the law. A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law. A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law.”
He’s apologizing to his deep-blue/far-left constituency for having to prosecute the guy for killing hundreds of live babies! That he feels he needs to apologize for prosecuting this case speaks volumes about the left’s extreme and irrational attitudes towards abortion regulation."
-
I don't think that's an apology. It sounds like a statement of fact. He's pointing out exactly why this is a murder case and one he is going to pursue.
Chris
-
It's just a slippery slope from late-term abortions to postnatal abortions...
Well, my problem with it is the counterproductive discriminatory nature of the way it's handled: why is it okay to kill them early on, but not once they've proven that they will be a detriment to society?
-
A school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin but any stranger can legally talk a 13 year old into an abortion at almost any term with no oversight whatsoever. The FDA paternalistically denies adults medicines and procedures that the FDA judges “unsafe” but allows children to decide about invasive medical procedures? WTF?...
A strawman argument. After all what you actually oppose is anybody getting abortions at all, 'children' or 'adults'.
-
A strawman argument. After all what you actually oppose is anybody getting abortions at all, 'children' or 'adults'.
How is that a strawman argument, is anything he said untrue?
This is an example of the sickness of the left around abortion. Yes, I am opposed to anyone having an abortion because the child being murdered has a right to life. And yes, parental notification and involvement is a step towards finally stopping our "choice" holocaust. Are you saying that first step is too far?
-
See, I used to believe in parental notification and reasonable compromise on the issue of abortion. Based on my experiences in this forum, I no longer do.
-
See, I used to believe in parental notification and reasonable compromise on the issue of abortion. Based on my experiences in this forum, I no longer do.
Why is that? Are children now better able to make life changing decisions than they were before?
-
What other medical procedures are allowed without parental notification? Would a surgical clinic or hospital admit a minor for elective surgery or other medical procedure without a parent/guardian present? I am just for being consistent on that issue.
I used to be pretty heavily in favor of the pro-choice side, but leftists and doctor's like this tend to chase me away. I'll never be pro-life though. I guess I am somewhere in between like most people.
-
Why is that? Are children now better able to make life changing decisions than they were before?
Because I don't believe that a 17-year-old is a child, or a 16-year-old is a child. I oppose curfews for that age, too.
In the same vein, I oppose bans for earrings/piercings/tattoos for individuals that age, or bans on them working or driving.
-
See, I used to believe in parental notification and reasonable compromise on the issue of abortion. Based on my experiences in this forum, I no longer do.
Because I don't believe that a 17-year-old is a child, or a 16-year-old is a child. I oppose curfews for that age, too.
In the same vein, I oppose bans for earrings/piercings/tattoos for individuals that age, or bans on them working or driving.
Your experience in this forum has convinced you of all that?
-
Your experience in this forum has convinced you of all that?
I doubt it was his experience with 16 and 17 year olds.
:P
-
Your experience in this forum has convinced you of all that?
Well, you're right, I digress.
The goal of anti-abortionists is to ban abortion completely, isn't it?
On this logic, no pro-choicer should ever compromise with them, because they are never willing to accept a compromise with pro-choice forces, it's all a salami-tactic down to a ban on abortion, forever.
-
Well, you're right, I digress.
The goal of anti-abortionists is to ban abortion completely, isn't it?
On this logic, no pro-choicer should ever compromise with them, because they are never willing to accept a compromise with pro-choice forces, it's all a salami-tactic down to a ban on abortion, forever.
I was with you up to the salami-tactic because I haven't the slightest idea what that means.
I don't expect pro-abortionist to compromise, giving their goal of allowing any baby to be killed for any reason at any time (up until the point they can no longer convince themselves it isn't really a baby.) I will state quite clearly my goal is to protect all those babies. Every step I can take to protect more of them, I will.
It took a long time to reverse the injustice of slavery. It will take a long time to reverse this horror, too. I don't want compromise, I want their defeat.
-
Well, in this case we agree.
-
Well, in this case we agree.
And can you tell me what "salami-tactic" means?
-
Gradually denormalize something by introducing regulations to make it more and more difficult to get, then, when the enemy has been weakened, introduce outright ban.
-
The goal of anti-abortionists is to ban abortion completely, isn't it?
I think you are over-estimating the polarization of the debate.
It's like a straw man, except I don't think you are doing it intentionally.
-
^^^^^^ this! i am appalled to know that so many women use it as contraception.
-
I think you are over-estimating the polarization of the debate.
This is the actual argument made by people in this thread.
-
Well, you're right, I digress.
The goal of anti-abortionists is to ban abortion completely, isn't it?
On this logic, no pro-choicer should ever compromise with them, because they are never willing to accept a compromise with pro-choice forces, it's all a salami-tactic down to a ban on abortion, forever.
But there is no movement afoot for an all-out ban on piercings or medicine. So why even make the comparison?
However, you are correct that the goal of the pro-life movement is a ban on abortion, forever (possibly excepting life-of-the-mother cases). And, no, we don't want a compromise that allows anyone to be murdered. Not even a little bit.
-
But there is no movement afoot for an all-out ban on piercings or medicine. So why even make the comparison?
I wasn't the one who made that comparison.
-
To clarify: the term abortionist refers to a doctor performing abortions, not supporters of the procedure.
-
I wasn't the one who made that comparison.
Because I don't believe that a 17-year-old is a child, or a 16-year-old is a child. I oppose curfews for that age, too.
In the same vein, I oppose bans for earrings/piercings/tattoos for individuals that age, or bans on them working or driving.
Huh?
-
I should have said 'I wasn't the one who first made that comparison.'
A school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin but any stranger can legally talk a 13 year old into an abortion at almost any term with no oversight whatsoever. The FDA paternalistically denies adults medicines and procedures that the FDA judges “unsafe” but allows children to decide about invasive medical procedures? WTF?...