It's a good thing that Roe v Wade occurred so that women dont have to go to this sort of back alley

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

Let us also condemn the medical service in general as a bad idea, given that there are horror stories about individual doctors or clinics.

lowhat:

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent.

I'm glad to see that you are one of the few right-wingers here that don't hate immigrants. It is indeed true that large parts of America has come to rely on them, and if there should ever be a shortage of white children I am certain people in Mexico wouldn't mind getting out of their horror-filled lives in trade for a lower-class job in a country like the US.

I've been aware of this story for a while now and let me say this piece of shit deserves to be put to the slowest and most painful death a vengeful god can muster and any of the nurses that were complicit in the whole thing and the women that went to have this done can go right along with him for all I care. If there is a hell there is a special place there for each and every one of those people.

This sick fuck wasn't aborting clumps of cells he was killing actual babies by cutting their spinal cords with a pair of scissors after they had been born alive. That's fucking depraved. There is simply no defense for beheading a living breathing baby like this man did hundreds of times. I saw a video where one witness told a story of a nurse playing with one of these babies that was born alive before cutting it's head off as she had been trained to do.

The fact that this is being outright ignored by the mainstream media speaks volumes. Think about it for a minute. You have a man that was fucking beheading live babies, hundreds of them, and there hasn't been word one on the nightly news or any of the other main stream news sources. If this isn't newsworthy I can't imagine what is.

Super Not Cosmo:
I've been aware of this story for a while now and let me say this piece of shit deserves to be put to the slowest and most painful death a vengeful god can muster and any of the nurses that were complicit in the whole thing and the women that went to have this done can go right along with him for all I care. If there is a hell there is a special place there for each and every one of those people.

This sick fuck wasn't aborting clumps of cells he was killing actual babies by cutting their spinal cords with a pair of scissors after they had been born alive. That's fucking depraved. There is simply no defense for beheading a living breathing baby like this man did hundreds of times. I saw a video where one witness told a story of a nurse playing with one of these babies that was born alive before cutting it's head off as she had been trained to do.

The fact that this is being outright ignored by the mainstream media speaks volumes. Think about it for a minute. You have a man that was fucking beheading live babies, hundreds of them, and there hasn't been word one on the nightly news or any of the other main stream news sources. If this isn't newsworthy I can't imagine what is.

Arguably, assuming the fetuses born alive hadn't reached the 24 week limit yet, killing them once they left the womb is no more wrong than killing them before they left the womb, as the article said it's simply a matter of geography. I mean, is there is any logical reason why a fetus would suddenly become more valuable once it exits a woman's innards? After the 24 week limit, I'm personally not sure if that is morally wrong but it is illegal and should be punished, not as murder though in my opinion, a lesser charge would be more appropriate. Whatever happens, I hope the doctor gets a fair trial considering the high level of emotion surrounding the case, though it certainly looks like he's at-least guilty of running a shitty illegal clinic and carrying out unsafe procedures.

I'll start off by saying I'm pro-choice and abortion should be kept legal. Making the procedure harder to receive or illegal pressures women to extremes that can ultimately cost them their lives. If we consider life so precious, let's first take care of the ones that are here. A women risking her life for an abortion is at a risk of extreme injury or even dying. I would rather at least have her alive and under safe procedures than her risking her life and potentially dying to receive a procedure under less safe and sterile conditions.

If a woman thinks and wills to have the full pregnancy and place the child into adoption, then that is her choice. I can't stand by while forced pregnancies are upon women. We are reduced to nothing, but our biological functions. The idea that life is so precious is now made hypocritical. Her sanctity of life and bodily integrity are violated for another life.

But, this is something different. This is infanticide. My God, they were birthed. What this doctor is doing is murder, in my eyes.

Why does the news media hide this story? Why is it just coming out now? I'm aware that there were a few attempts to get this story out awhile go, but no outcry was made.

JoJo:
Arguably, assuming the fetuses born alive hadn't reached the 24 week limit yet, killing them once they left the womb is no more wrong than killing them before they left the womb, as the article said it's simply a matter of geography. I mean, is there is any logical reason why a fetus would suddenly become more valuable once it exit's a woman's innards? After the 24 week limit, I'm personally not sure if that is morally wrong but it is illegal and should be punished, not as murder though in my opinion, a lesser charge would be more appropriate. Whatever happens, I hope the doctor gets a fair trial considering the high level of emotion surrounding the case, though it certainly looks like he's at-least guilty of running a shitty illegal clinic and carrying out unsafe procedures.

You are absolutely right. It is just a matter of geography. If you decapitate a baby inside the womb or out you are still a murderer in my book. I don't care how many weeks along these women are if they are having babies that are coming out of the womb alive and then those babies are being fucking beheaded, that's murder in my book pure and simple and everyone involved in that procedure deserves to be treated accordingly.

These are actual babies we are talking about, not clumps of cells. Babies with developed arms and legs and toes and fingers that are being born alive and then having their heads unceremoniously cut off with scissors. If you aren't sure whether or not that's "morally wrong" then I beg you to make your way to the hospital nursery and find some babies born premature in that big window they have and ask yourself if it would be "morally wrong" for someone to come in and behead those babies because that's what's happening here.

As for not being murder, well what would you call it when you kill a living breathing baby? A baby that, with the advances in science, could have a real shot of surviving and living an actual life but instead is beheaded in a worse fashion than we slaughter most livestock. That sounds a whole lot like murder in the first degree to me.

This sick fuck and anyone that was complicit in this whole thing deserve no less than to go through what these innocent babies went through. They, in no uncertain terms, deserve to fucking die and die horribly and if there is any justice die painfully and slowly as well. They are no less than monsters.

Super Not Cosmo:

This sick fuck and anyone that was complicit in this whole thing deserve no less than to go through what these innocent babies went through. They, in no uncertain terms, deserve to fucking die and die horribly and if there is any justice die painfully and slowly as well. They are no less than monsters.

Stones and glass houses.

Really, if you want to argue how disgusting what you call murder is, it's at least in poor taste to vehemently state that it's, "in no uncertain terms", okay to murder the particular people who did something you disagree with, in the very next sentence.

After all, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, wishing a horrible death upon another person is disgusting and monstrous, therefore whoever wishes for that should die a horrible death.

Vegosiux:

Super Not Cosmo:

This sick fuck and anyone that was complicit in this whole thing deserve no less than to go through what these innocent babies went through. They, in no uncertain terms, deserve to fucking die and die horribly and if there is any justice die painfully and slowly as well. They are no less than monsters.

Stones and glass houses.

Really, if you want to argue how disgusting what you call murder is, it's at least in poor taste to vehemently state that it's, "in no uncertain terms", okay to murder the particular people who did something you disagree with, in the very next sentence.

After all, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, wishing a horrible death upon another person is disgusting and monstrous, therefore whoever wishes for that should die a horrible death.

I have no problem wishing death upon this sub human piece of shit responsible for killing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of living breathing babies. It takes a special kind of sick and depraved person to be able to hold and look at a living baby, not a fetus not a zygote but a baby, and proceed to decapitate it.

If it were up to me I'd give this ass hat the death penalty but throw him jail to season for a few hellish years of daily unsolicited man on man lovin' so that I could be secure in the fact that he actually suffered all that time before finding an extremely inhumane way (I hear being drawn and quartered really sucks) of doing away with him.

I'm a lazy guy and I procrastinate of most things, but I imagine one of the things you don't want to "put off" is getting an abortion. The women involved couldn't find time in their seclude to get an abortion before the deadline? I'm sure they all have plenty of excuses.

I am pro-abortion (pro-choice is an insulting term) because I know that the types of parents who have abortions(i.e. the kind that have accidental pregnancies) tend to raise children who aren't productive members of society. I understand the babies in this case had gang-banger as their most likely future profession, but its ridiculous that the mothers didn't handle this sooner before the children started to fully developed.

Super Not Cosmo:

These are actual babies we are talking about, not clumps of cells. Babies with developed arms and legs and toes and fingers that are being born alive and then having their heads unceremoniously cut off with scissors. If you aren't sure whether or not that's "morally wrong" then I beg you to make your way to the hospital nursery and find some babies born premature in that big window they have and ask yourself if it would be "morally wrong" for someone to come in and behead those babies because that's what's happening here.

As for not being murder, well what would you call it when you kill a living breathing baby? A baby that, with the advances in science, could have a real shot of surviving and living an actual life but instead is beheaded in a worse fashion than we slaughter most livestock. That sounds a whole lot like murder in the first degree to me.

Well, the issue I have is that in my personal moral framework I tend to assign personhood to sapient beings, that is something with a reasonably developed mind. To me it makes no difference if something is a 1cm spherical clump of cells or looks like a fully-formed baby, what's important is whether they have the ability to think and know they are alive. It is of course subjective when a fetus or baby's mind is developed enough for them to be a person, so I'm not entirely sure when that cut-off point should be, I really should research the matter some time. I don't believe that around the time frame in which the doctor killed the babies they would have a properly developed mind however and so I find it difficult to condemn what he did, especially in as strong terms as murder.

For the hospital nursery example in particular, I would say it would be wrong for someone to behead those premature babies as those babies presumably would have parents who want them to stay alive, so it would be infringing the parents' rights by denying them their babies. If it was the parents themselves doing the deed on the other hand, I guess the morality of it would depend on exactly how developed the baby was.

JoJo:

Super Not Cosmo:

These are actual babies we are talking about, not clumps of cells. Babies with developed arms and legs and toes and fingers that are being born alive and then having their heads unceremoniously cut off with scissors. If you aren't sure whether or not that's "morally wrong" then I beg you to make your way to the hospital nursery and find some babies born premature in that big window they have and ask yourself if it would be "morally wrong" for someone to come in and behead those babies because that's what's happening here.

As for not being murder, well what would you call it when you kill a living breathing baby? A baby that, with the advances in science, could have a real shot of surviving and living an actual life but instead is beheaded in a worse fashion than we slaughter most livestock. That sounds a whole lot like murder in the first degree to me.

Well, the issue I have is that in my personal moral framework I tend to assign personhood to sapient beings, that is something with a reasonably developed mind. To me it makes no difference if something is a 1cm spherical clump of cells or looks like a fully-formed baby, what's important is whether they have the ability to think and know they are alive. It is of course subjective when a fetus or baby's mind is developed enough for them to be a person, so I'm not entirely sure when that cut-off point should be, I really should research the matter some time. I don't believe that around the time frame in which the doctor killed the babies they would have a properly developed mind however and so I find it difficult to condemn what he did, especially in as strong terms as murder.

For the hospital nursery example in particular, I would say it would be wrong for someone to behead those premature babies as those babies presumably would have parents who want them to stay alive, so it would be infringing the parents' rights by denying them their babies. If it was the parents themselves doing the deed on the other hand, I guess the morality of it would depend on exactly how developed the baby was.

You probably want to rethink using self awareness as a barometer for determining murder. Children don't become self aware until at least a year and a half after they are born and sometimes as late as three years. Their minds continue developing well past that.

Now if you want to use consciousness as a barometer then that would begin around six months after conception. Many of those babies that he murdered likely could recognize the sound of their mother's voice. Babies come out of the womb being able to do that. They most certainly felt pain, however fleeting, as that sick fuck was cutting their heads off with those scissors. They were born alive and took breaths outside of the womb. They were actual people.

I've included a few picture of premature babies below. These are what many of the babies this sick fuck murdered looked like when their heads were still attached to their body. These are babies, by your standards, you would have no problem seen cavalierly slaughtered at their parents whim because they simply don't meet some arbitrary requirement you've set for their lives to matter. These are also babies that now, despite being born prematurely lead normal lives.

image

image

image

Super Not Cosmo:

If it were up to me I'd give this ass hat the death penalty but throw him jail to season for a few hellish years of daily unsolicited man on man lovin' so that I could be secure in the fact that he actually suffered all that time before finding an extremely inhumane way (I hear being drawn and quartered really sucks) of doing away with him.

Well, then I suppose we can be glad you're not running the judiciary. If I wanted to live in a place where the legal system was run on bloodlust and thirst for revenge and suffering, I'd move to some country where some radical form of Sharia law is in effect.

I find it despicable that anyone would advocate inhumane execution and try to claim they hold the moral high ground in the same sentence.

But this is where I'll leave it. I'm in a strong disagreement with you on this one, and I don't care for whatever "moral justifications" you can throw my way, because as far as I'm concerned, there are no such moral justifications. And disguising primal violent urges as "morality" is something I do not want to touch with tongs while wearing a hazard suit.

ShiningAmber:
I'll start off by saying I'm pro-choice and abortion should be kept legal. Making the procedure harder to receive or illegal pressures women to extremes that can ultimately cost them their lives. If we consider life so precious, let's first take care of the ones that are here. A women risking her life for an abortion is at a risk of extreme injury or even dying. I would rather at least have her alive and under safe procedures than her risking her life and potentially dying to receive a procedure under less safe and sterile conditions.

If a woman thinks and wills to have the full pregnancy and place the child into adoption, then that is her choice. I can't stand by while forced pregnancies are upon women. We are reduced to nothing, but our biological functions. The idea that life is so precious is now made hypocritical. Her sanctity of life and bodily integrity are violated for another life.

But, this is something different. This is infanticide. My God, they were birthed. What this doctor is doing is murder, in my eyes.

Why does the news media hide this story? Why is it just coming out now? I'm aware that there were a few attempts to get this story out awhile go, but no outcry was made.

This occurred in Philadelphia, where I live. A dozen other abortion clinics are a 2$ SEPTA token away, so the idea that these women couldn't go to other abortionists, doesn't make much sense. This sort of thing originates with the notion that chopping up a fetus for convenience is acceptable in a civilized society, not from a lack of abortion facilities.

I was skeptical and, quite frankly, rather annoyed by the frequent use of "beheadings" in this thread. I figured, oh, that's just media sensationalism that people are repeating.

Then I find, nope -- the "beheadings" label came straight from a worker at the clinic, here quoted by a local NBC affiliate:

Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, "literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body."

But that's just the word of one worker, and also note he didn't say head, just brain. Another clinic worker, Adrienne Moton, didn't describe it as beheading when interviewed, and the Philly District Attorney described it as, well, let's be honest, only a slightly less gruesome act:

West Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell routinely delivered live babies in the third trimester of pregnancy, then murdered them by "sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord," according to the Philadelphia District Attorney.

Of course, it's plausible to say that this might have and probably did result in some actual beheadings.

And none of this is to say this wasn't as bad as it's being made out to be. Oh no, despite my initial impressions at the frequent use of the word "beheading" so far I think the actual situation is likely worse than being reported. I think we may see even worse stuff come out as the trial continues. I mean, take a look at this list--and that's from an article published January 20th!

There's really no defending this dude no matter what your stance on abortion itself may be.

I don't even wanna investigate this story anymore.

Reading that article made me sick to my stomach. Truly shocking and revolting.

Nikolaz72:

lowhat:

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent.

I'm glad to see that you are one of the few right-wingers here that don't hate immigrants. It is indeed true that large parts of America has come to rely on them, and if there should ever be a shortage of white children I am certain people in Mexico wouldn't mind getting out of their horror-filled lives in trade for a lower-class job in a country like the US.

Most of us right-wingers don't mind immigrants, we just hate illegals. If you fill out the proper forms and come here legally we'll be happy you're here.

OT: The guy was clearly out of his mind, I believe the death sentence is appropriate here.

If it could survive outside of the womb, shoot, if it currently is surviving outside of the womb, killing it is murder. Period. None of this arguing about the onset of sapience, we're talking about an independent living, breathing thing that is by all accounts "human." I'm fine with abortion under the majority of circumstances, but if it is already living independently there is absolutely no fucking reason to kill. Here, the whole just give it up for adoption thing is extremely justified.

I am going to take the moral lowroad and say "OFF with his head!". Wow this is just sickening, I am all for the right to have an abortion with a cutoff date and this is well beyond a cutoff date. This guy is a serial murder and deserves the death penalty as far as i am concerned.

Revnak:
If it could survive outside of the womb, shoot, if it currently is surviving outside of the womb, killing it is murder. Period. None of this arguing about the onset of sapience, we're talking about an independent living, breathing thing that is by all accounts "human." I'm fine with abortion under the majority of circumstances, but if it is already living independently there is absolutely no fucking reason to kill. Here, the whole just give it up for adoption thing is extremely justified.

That seems like an arbitrary way of determining whether nor not something should be aborted. Are people with pacemakers no longer 'human'? What about a baby that needs assistance to survive immediately after being born, is it okay for the parent(s) to say 'Eh, we changed our mind. Pull the plug'? Is someone in an iron lung not considered to be a person anymore? What Gosnell is doing isn't very much different from 'normal' abortions. You should watch an abortion some time, because you can see the fetus clearly struggling against it.

For example, if the child is between 10-20 weeks old, then they have to crush the fetus' skull with a clamp in order to easily remove it. After 20 weeks, they induce labor via medication, force her to birth the baby, then cut it's spinal cord and use a vacuum to suck what's left of it's brain out so the skull collapses, and then they can fully remove it. If Gosnell is beheading some of them completely, then he's just bypassing the 'force the skull to collapse' bit. Honestly, I'd rather get my head cut clean off as opposed to slowly having my skull crushed, but that's just me.

I mean, I really have a hard time understanding how people can pro-abortion but condemn Gosnell's actions. Destroying/removing the skull so that the baby can be removed is actually a vital part of the procedure due to the size of the baby making other methods of removal ineffective. Unless the people condemning him don't actually know how an abortion is handled and [insert derogatory comment about liberals here].

Edit: This is also probably the reason why no news station really picked up on the story. Because this is just how abortions work. Abortions are legal in most places where they're done, so there's no sense in going 'ABORTION DOCTORS ARE PREFORMING ABORTIONS. OH GEEZ, SOMEONE CALL THE COPS.'

Edit 2: For reference; abortion can also cause a massive amount of catastrophic damage to a woman. Hemorrhaging, infection (especially if they haven't scraped out every last bit of the baby out of the womb with a knife), proliferation (basically the same as hemorrhaging with a different cause), fatal birth (If you attempt to have an abortion while the baby is growing in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus, then it could very well kill you), induce breast cancer (Abortion interrupts the natural process of breast development, abruptly stopping cell growth, leaving the breast with extra cells that can become cancerous.), etc.

I mean, I shed no tears whenever the news reports that yet another abortion doctor was murdered in his backyard. There actually is a reason that so many of them get killed, not just 'LONG LIVE THE PATRIARCHY."

Nice to see the bloodlust from people with no sense of irony. Infallible logic from the OP as well, "making abortions legal doesn't stop all bad things involved with abortion, so what's the point?" I guess the police don't stop every single crime, so we should get rid of them too.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:
If it could survive outside of the womb, shoot, if it currently is surviving outside of the womb, killing it is murder. Period. None of this arguing about the onset of sapience, we're talking about an independent living, breathing thing that is by all accounts "human." I'm fine with abortion under the majority of circumstances, but if it is already living independently there is absolutely no fucking reason to kill. Here, the whole just give it up for adoption thing is extremely justified.

That seems like an arbitrary way of determining whether nor not something should be aborted. Are people with pacemakers no longer 'human'? Is someone in an iron lung not considered to be a person anymore? What Gosnell is doing isn't very much different from 'normal' abortions. You should watch an abortion some time, because you can see the fetus clearly struggling against it.

For example, if the child is between 10-20 weeks old, then they have to crush the fetus' skull with a clamp in order to easily remove it. After 20 weeks, they induce labor via medication, force her to birth the baby, then cut it's spinal cord and use a vacuum so suck what's left of it's brain out so the skull collapses, and then they can fully remove it. If Gosnell is beheading some of them completely, then he's just bypassing the 'force the skull to collapse' bit. Honestly, I'd rather get my head cut clean off as opposed to slowly having my skull crushed, but that's just me.

I mean, I really have a hard time understanding how people can pro-abortion but condemn Gosnell's actions. Destroying/removing the skull so that the baby can be removed is actually a vital part of the procedure due to the size of the baby making other methods of removal ineffective. Unless the people condemning him don't actually know how an abortion is handled and [insert derogatory comment about liberals here].

Edit: This is also probably the reason why no news station really picked up on the story. Because this is just how abortions work. Abortions are legal in most places where they're done, so there's no sense in going 'ABORTION DOCTORS ARE PREFORMING ABORTIONS. OH GEEZ, SOMEONE CALL THE COPS.'

Edit 2: For reference; abortion can also cause a massive amount of catastrophic damage to a woman. Hemorrhaging, infection (especially if they haven't scraped out every last bit of the baby out of the womb with a knife), proliferation (basically the same as hemorrhaging with a different cause), fatal birth (If you attempt to have an abortion while the baby is growing in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus, then it could very well kill you), induce breast cancer (Abortion interrupts the natural process of breast development, abruptly stopping cell growth, leaving the breast with extra cells that can become cancerous.), etc.

I mean, I shed no tears whenever the news reports that yet another abortion doctor was murdered in his backyard. There actually is a reason that so many of them get killed, not just 'LONG LIVE THE PATRIARCHY."

Because the issue with Gosnell also involves unnecessary mutilation, which is distasteful at best. He also sold prescription meds out the back of his clinic, so he wasn't exactly a fine upstanding citizen anyway.

That said, one person's awful acts should not, do not, and will not invalidate a woman's right to have an abortion. I personally don't like the idea of using it for birth control, and that it should only be an option if the life of the baby or the life of the mother is in danger, but that's not my decision to make.

Super Not Cosmo:

Vegosiux:

Super Not Cosmo:

This sick fuck and anyone that was complicit in this whole thing deserve no less than to go through what these innocent babies went through. They, in no uncertain terms, deserve to fucking die and die horribly and if there is any justice die painfully and slowly as well. They are no less than monsters.

Stones and glass houses.

Really, if you want to argue how disgusting what you call murder is, it's at least in poor taste to vehemently state that it's, "in no uncertain terms", okay to murder the particular people who did something you disagree with, in the very next sentence.

After all, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, wishing a horrible death upon another person is disgusting and monstrous, therefore whoever wishes for that should die a horrible death.

I have no problem wishing death upon this sub human piece of shit responsible for killing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of living breathing babies. It takes a special kind of sick and depraved person to be able to hold and look at a living baby, not a fetus not a zygote but a baby, and proceed to decapitate it.

If it were up to me I'd give this ass hat the death penalty but throw him jail to season for a few hellish years of daily unsolicited man on man lovin' so that I could be secure in the fact that he actually suffered all that time before finding an extremely inhumane way (I hear being drawn and quartered really sucks) of doing away with him.

I suggest looking up the word "hypocrisy". Judging from this post, I don't think you understand what it means.

Saying someone is evil for killing someone in a horrific manner, and saying that they should die in horrific manner...

By your own logic, that would either make you "evil" or a hypocrite. Just saying.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I suggest looking up the word "hypocrisy". Judging from this post, I don't think you understand what it means.

Saying someone is evil for killing someone in a horrific manner, and saying that they should die in horrific manner...

By your own logic, that would either make you "evil" or a hypocrite. Just saying.

You're right. We should just give him a stern talking to and make him promise not to do it again. Then, we can follow it up with a group hug and a nice cup of tea for everyone.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I suggest looking up the word "hypocrisy". Judging from this post, I don't think you understand what it means.

Saying someone is evil for killing someone in a horrific manner, and saying that they should die in horrific manner...

By your own logic, that would either make you "evil" or a hypocrite. Just saying.

You're right. We should just give him a stern talking to and make him promise not to do it again. Then, we can follow it up with a group hug and a nice cup of tea for everyone.

No, we lock him up for the rest of his life. That's justice, what you want is just sick - rape and mutilation? How are you any better than him?

Karma168:

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I suggest looking up the word "hypocrisy". Judging from this post, I don't think you understand what it means.

Saying someone is evil for killing someone in a horrific manner, and saying that they should die in horrific manner...

By your own logic, that would either make you "evil" or a hypocrite. Just saying.

You're right. We should just give him a stern talking to and make him promise not to do it again. Then, we can follow it up with a group hug and a nice cup of tea for everyone.

No, we lock him up for the rest of his life. That's justice, what you want is just sick - rape and mutilation? How are you any better than him?

You say that, but what he was doing wasn't exceptional. The only difference between what he did, and what he was supposed to do, is that they're supposed to kill the baby while it's still partially inside the mother (in order to make extraction easier). Instead, he completely removed the baby instead of simply killing it while it was still halfway inside of the woman. It's a difference of literally 5-10 seconds.

So unless you want to lock away all abortion doctors (or at least late term ones), then...kinda hypocritical.

Kopikatsu:

You say that, but what he was doing wasn't exceptional. The only difference between what he did, and what he was supposed to do, is that they're supposed to kill the baby while it's still partially inside the mother (in order to make extraction easier). Instead, he completely removed the baby instead of simply killing it while it was still halfway inside of the woman. It's a difference of literally 5-10 seconds.

So unless you want to lock away all abortion doctors (or at least late term ones), then...kinda hypocritical.

The hypocrisy is saying 'that guys a monster for mutilating and killing babies, he should be mutilated and killed!'

It might be a fine line between legal abortion and murder but this guy crossed it and deserves to be punished, nothing wrong with calling for that, but calling for mutilation and having him 'hung drawn and quartered' is barbaric and trying to claim the moral high ground while saying that is disgusting and hypocritical.

It's like saying Unit 731 were monsters for performing human experimentation during WW2 so they deserve to be experimented on.

Kopikatsu:
You say that, but what he was doing wasn't exceptional. The only difference between what he did, and what he was supposed to do, is that they're supposed to kill the baby while it's still partially inside the mother (in order to make extraction easier). Instead, he completely removed the baby instead of simply killing it while it was still halfway inside of the woman. It's a difference of literally 5-10 seconds.

So unless you want to lock away all abortion doctors (or at least late term ones), then...kinda hypocritical.

I say let's get to building some jails then because I'm fine with locking up doctors that perform late term abortions for any reason other than the life of the mother. If you are killing a baby that's already into the ass end of the second trimester or into third trimester that's murder pure and simple. The women that have this done and the doctors that facilitate it are murderers.

I have no problem with abortions in the first few months and I can even live with some cases beyond those first handful of months. However, there is a point where there is simply no justification for it but in extreme cases where it becomes a matter of life and death. There comes a point when a babies right to life trumps a woman's right to not be inconvenienced.

This "doctor" was a monster that was slaughtering babies by the hundreds. Many of those babies were born alive and summarily decapitated even though many of them could have survived outside of the womb and gone on to lead normal lives. Unfortunately for those babies it was just easier to cut their heads off and toss them in the nearest bin.

That was a very incoherent OP. Anyways if you want to blame someone blame the state. States have a moderate amount of leeway to control abortion practices, obviously this guy wasn't following it but that's why he should be charged and is. No liberal thinks abortion procedures shouldn't be regulated, however there is a big difference between regulation and basically banning abortion clinics regulation.

As an example I just looked it up and PA doesn't have a ban on partial birth abortion making many procedures where you indicate a baby being taken out "alive" and then being killed legal, it seems like he wasn't following the ex amount of months rule. States can also control(within a certain margin) the amount of months that an abortion can be had.

Kopikatsu:
*snip*

You misunderstand. That actually is not my standard. It is in fact past my standard (my standard being based on the development of the nervous system and the heart, though I will admit I am not certain of the specifics). I'm actually saying that I absolutely cannot imagine the idea that someone would be for abortions at such a stage, i.e., after the child has already been born. It just isn't an abortion at that point. There is absolutely no justification.

Super Not Cosmo:

You probably want to rethink using self awareness as a barometer for determining murder. Children don't become self aware until at least a year and a half after they are born and sometimes as late as three years. Their minds continue developing well past that.

Now if you want to use consciousness as a barometer then that would begin around six months after conception. Many of those babies that he murdered likely could recognize the sound of their mother's voice. Babies come out of the womb being able to do that. They most certainly felt pain, however fleeting, as that sick fuck was cutting their heads off with those scissors. They were born alive and took breaths outside of the womb. They were actual people.

I've included a few picture of premature babies below. These are what many of the babies this sick fuck murdered looked like when their heads were still attached to their body. These are babies, by your standards, you would have no problem seen cavalierly slaughtered at their parents whim because they simply don't meet some arbitrary requirement you've set for their lives to matter. These are also babies that now, despite being born prematurely lead normal lives.

-baby pics-

Well, consciousness and self-awareness aren't generally discrete properties, instead covering a wide range of less and more developed minds. Even if consciousness does arise in the womb, it doesn't necessarily render killing immoral, after-all most of us are willing to let conscious animals die daily for our meat. I don't see any reason to treat humans as morally more important than other animals aside from our far more developed intellect and so if I am willing to let less sapient animals die then I would be hypocritical to see the killing of humans with a similar intellectual capacity as immoral.

For the record though, due to the subjectiveness of when exactly one crosses the line into personhood, I support legal personhood being applied at live, non-abortion induced birth for practical reasons in our current society, even if actual personhood comes later. Of course there's little reason to kill a baby once it's got as far as being born and a lot to potentially lose, so better to be safe than sorry.

As for the pictures, I'm afraid I won't be swayed by emotional appeals. I could equally say your support for the legality of abortion in the first few months of pregnancy but not later (mentioned in post #28) is as arbitrary as me considering setting the line for personhood later than that.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:
*snip*

You misunderstand. That actually is not my standard. It is in fact past my standard (my standard being based on the development of the nervous system and the heart, though I will admit I am not certain of the specifics). I'm actually saying that I absolutely cannot imagine the idea that someone would be for abortions at such a stage, i.e., after the child has already been born. It just isn't an abortion at that point. There is absolutely no justification.

8 weeks for the heart and about 10-12 weeks for the CNS. Effectively half of the minimum current time.

Also I'd like to point out something to everyone that I don't think people understand he is getting charged with murder and probably violating the partial birth abortion act. Which basically means instead of taking the baby piece by piece out of the uterus he pulled it out whole then ended it's life and performed late term abortions beyond his state's law for no good reason.

I'm not sure what people where expecting from an abortion procedure but the way i've heard it described there is no way to do it without dismemberment while the fetus is alive or dead. The only other method is injecting a lethal dose of drugs(I think it's calcium chloride or something) that basically burns the baby's undeveloped skin and kills it(and causes danger to the mother more than the normal approaches) then once it's dead it can be fully extracted.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:
*snip*

You misunderstand. That actually is not my standard. It is in fact past my standard (my standard being based on the development of the nervous system and the heart, though I will admit I am not certain of the specifics). I'm actually saying that I absolutely cannot imagine the idea that someone would be for abortions at such a stage, i.e., after the child has already been born. It just isn't an abortion at that point. There is absolutely no justification.

What I'm saying is that the child technically hasn't been born. After 20 weeks, they induce labor artificially and force a premature birth. It wouldn't have been 'born' if they hadn't induced labor, and the baby is unlikely to survive (or at least function well) after the procedure, even without sucking their brain out of their throat because the birth is so premature. Of course, the survival rate for premature births is much higher than Planned Parenthood claims (because God forbid people actually learn what a vile and abhorrent procedure an abortion is), but still not super high.

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

I'm sorry, but until you personally are willing to start campaigning to take care of these babies AFTER they are born your argument has no place here.

What a complete non-sequitur, OP. This has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade were about behaviour like this, he wouldn't be charged now that all his crimes have surfaced. The problem here was not with the legislation but with the enforcement. Did you know that he wasn't checked up on for many, many years? Nobody checked to see what this sicko was doing. That tells you something about the state of your regulatory enforcement. Don't act like this has anything to do with Roe v. Wade, just because you have an axe to grind with abortion overall, including properly legislated, regulated, controlled and justified abortion. If this was an attempt to change any pro-choicers' minds, it was an incredibly poor one and an obvious attempt at demonizing your opponents. Try again and be more subtle next time.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked