PDA

View Full Version : Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts of Murder



txradioguy
01-19-2011, 01:49 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/397/224/abortiondoctor.JPG


An abortion doctor who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies who were born alive and then killed with scissors, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said. State regulators ignored complaints about him and failed to visit or inspect his clinic since 1993, but no charges were warranted against them, District Attorney Seth Williams said.

Gosnell, his wife and eight other colleagues were arrested overnight Tuesday following a grand jury investigation, MyFoxPhilly.com reports.

According to the district attorney's office, Gosnell is facing murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. The patient died Nov. 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell, according to the station.

Williams said during a press conference Wednesday that Gosnell "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."


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/19/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-charged-counts-murder/

Apache
01-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Sick Bastard! May he rot...

PoliCon
01-19-2011, 02:30 PM
His is the mindset common among the abortion supporters to like to be called "pro-choicers."

Wei Wu Wei
01-19-2011, 02:33 PM
His is the mindset common among the abortion supporters to like to be called "pro-choicers."

Sometimes it's tough to tell, are you making a hyperbolic rhetorical statement, or is this what you actually unironically believe?

txradioguy
01-19-2011, 02:34 PM
His is the mindset common among the abortion supporters to like to be called "pro-choicers."

Evil...pure freaking evil...and yet the abortion "rights" crowd will probably stick up for him and say that this is a witch hunt by conservatives

NJCardFan
01-19-2011, 02:38 PM
Wilbur, your take on this?

noonwitch
01-19-2011, 03:10 PM
This doctor was charged with things that would be crimes no matter what the laws about abortion are. He had untrained people administering drugs and anesthesia. That violates most states' laws regarding medical care.


I've been in a couple of different abortion clinics in my lifetime. One is the one that recently closed in Kalamazoo. It was Planned Parenthood. I drove a friend to the clinic for her abortion. It was clean, the people who worked there were all licensed professionals, and the procedure was completed by an MD. The nurses had their certificates and licenses posted in plain view, as did the doctors.

I went to one in Detroit, accompanying another party, before the 1990 ballot initiative that ended medicaid abortions and instituted parental consent laws and other restrictions. It was a nasty and dirty place, and it was not affiliated with PP at all. I suspect this clinic is like that one.

txradioguy
01-19-2011, 03:17 PM
This doctor was charged with things that would be crimes no matter what the laws about abortion are. He had untrained people administering drugs and anesthesia. That violates most states' laws regarding medical care.

Wait...isn't this the exact thing that all of the pro murder zealots claim will happen if Roe is repealed?

Yet here it is...right there in front of us with abortion on demand still legal.

:rolleyes:




I've been in a couple of different abortion clinics in my lifetime. One is the one that recently closed in Kalamazoo. It was Planned Parenthood. I drove a friend to the clinic for her abortion. It was clean, the people who worked there were all licensed professionals, and the procedure was completed by an MD. The nurses had their certificates and licenses posted in plain view, as did the doctors.

Glad it's closed and the Eugenics folks at Planned Parenthood are out of a job.

Oh and BTW some freaking friend you are.


I went to one in Detroit, accompanying another party, before the 1990 ballot initiative that ended medicaid abortions and instituted parental consent laws and other restrictions. It was a nasty and dirty place, and it was not affiliated with PP at all. I suspect this clinic is like that one.


WTF are you? Jack Kevorkians evil step sister or something? Or do you just get your jollies taking pregnant women to go kill an innocent life?

linda22003
01-19-2011, 03:46 PM
ANY kind of medical practitioner who does a bad job should not be practicing, no matter what the specific field.

enslaved1
01-19-2011, 03:55 PM
At least Philly has the backbone to prosecute. Kansas had dear old Dr. Tiller, and ample evidence bring a case to court, but political pressure from then Gov. Sebellius kept it from happening. I personally would have even preferred due process and a genuine innocent verdict over him getting shot in the foyer of his church. Would have preferred even more a guilty verdict and nice long prison sentence, but that's neither here nor there.

wilbur
01-19-2011, 04:17 PM
Wilbur, your take on this?

If all abortions were illegal, we'd probably see a lot more of this stuff. A pro-life world would probably be filled with doctors like this, doing under the table, illegal abortions.... hence, one of the reasons to ADAMANTLY oppose the pro-life movement.

PoliCon
01-19-2011, 04:24 PM
Unfortunately abortion rates are directly proportinal to availability so your argument does not hold water Wilbur. Try again.

wilbur
01-19-2011, 04:33 PM
Unfortunately abortion rates are directly proportinal to availability so your argument does not hold water Wilbur. Try again.

But neither availability or rates correlate with the legal status of abortion.

So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common, because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered, and more dead women.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html



Many of these policy debates are driven by the motivation to reduce abortion rates, and among some policymakers, the answer is to make abortion difficult to obtain or even illegal. Yet an examination of statistical trends reveals that the legal status of abortion in a country is not strongly correlated with the rate at which it occurs. Indeed, in many countries where the procedure is illegal, women obtain abortions at very high rates. Similarly, in some countries where abortion is legal and very widely accessible, abortion rates are low.

Clearly, factors other than legality are at play here. The primary factor is the rate at which women experience unintended pregnancies. Some women who have an unintended pregnancy will seek an abortion regardless of its legal status—even if they have to jeopardize their lives by undergoing an unsafe, illegal procedure. Thus, while there may be little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.


So I reiterate - if you'd like to see a world filled with more Dr. Kermits.... make abortion illegal.

Rockntractor
01-19-2011, 05:04 PM
ANY kind of medical practitioner who does a bad job should not be practicing, no matter what the specific field.

Are you sure your not being kind of hard on him Linda, after all he did manage to kill the babies and that was his job.

AmPat
01-19-2011, 05:41 PM
This doctor was charged with things that would be crimes no matter what the laws about abortion are. He had untrained people administering drugs and anesthesia. That violates most states' laws regarding medical care.


I've been in a couple of different abortion clinics in my lifetime. One is the one that recently closed in Kalamazoo. It was Planned Parenthood. I drove a friend to the clinic for her abortion. It was clean, the people who worked there were all licensed professionals, and the procedure was completed by an MD. The nurses had their certificates and licenses posted in plain view, as did the doctors.

I went to one in Detroit, accompanying another party, before the 1990 ballot initiative that ended medicaid abortions and instituted parental consent laws and other restrictions. It was a nasty and dirty place, and it was not affiliated with PP at all. I suspect this clinic is like that one.
But if Wilber is right, this can't happen! WE HAVE LAWS!!!
If not for Abortion on demand, we would have dirty clinics killing babies.:rolleyes:

linda22003
01-19-2011, 06:02 PM
Are you sure your not being kind of hard on him Linda, after all he did manage to kill the babies and that was his job.

If he committed malpractice or broke the law he should lose his license. It doesn't sound like he was doing abortions, which as I recall are legal.

linda22003
01-19-2011, 06:03 PM
Oh, and Rock....

http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson8.html

NJCardFan
01-19-2011, 06:35 PM
If all abortions were illegal, we'd probably see a lot more of this stuff. A pro-life world would probably be filled with doctors like this, doing under the table, illegal abortions.... hence, one of the reasons to ADAMANTLY oppose the pro-life movement.

So what you're saying is that you all for post birth terminations?

NJCardFan
01-19-2011, 06:37 PM
At least Philly has the backbone to prosecute. Kansas had dear old Dr. Tiller, and ample evidence bring a case to court, but political pressure from then Gov. Sebellius kept it from happening. I personally would have even preferred due process and a genuine innocent verdict over him getting shot in the foyer of his church. Would have preferred even more a guilty verdict and nice long prison sentence, but that's neither here nor there.

The irony that Tiller even went to church was mind boggling.

Apache
01-19-2011, 06:40 PM
If he committed malpractice or broke the law he should lose his license. It doesn't sound like he was doing abortions, which as I recall are legal.

1) He has had 4 dozen lawsuits spanning 20 years, including malpractice suits.

2)Had untrained and unlicensed staff doing work way above their heads

3) Abortions are legal only up to 24 weeks. He performed them later than that, making them illegal abortions

wilbur
01-19-2011, 06:40 PM
So what you're saying is that you all for post birth terminations?

Seriously, how often do I have to say it - no! There's simply no way to even get to that conclusion from my words you quoted...

what. the. fuck.

NJCardFan
01-19-2011, 06:43 PM
Seriously, how often do I have to say it - no!
Just checking. But you do know that there are some abortion rights people who do, right? I mean, after all, there was opposition to making late term abortion illegal. There was also some wacko, might have been Sunstein, who believed that a mother had a right to kill her children up to 2 years of age.

Odysseus
01-19-2011, 08:20 PM
Sometimes it's tough to tell, are you making a hyperbolic rhetorical statement, or is this what you actually unironically believe?


If all abortions were illegal, we'd probably see a lot more of this stuff. A pro-life world would probably be filled with doctors like this, doing under the table, illegal abortions.... hence, one of the reasons to ADAMANTLY oppose the pro-life movement.


But neither availability or rates correlate with the legal status of abortion.

So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common, because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered, and more dead women.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

So I reiterate - if you'd like to see a world filled with more Dr. Kermits.... make abortion illegal.
The Guttmacher Institute is a division of Planned Parenthood, and they cannot be taken seriously as a source of data. In this case, the statement is clearly false. The number of abortions performed in the US exploded after Roe Vs. Wade legalized it. The first column shows the Guttmacher abortion stats, the second, the CDC numbers.

1973 744,600 615,831
1974 898,600 763,476
1975 1,034,200 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,700 1,251,921
1980 1,553,900 1,297,606

In both tracks, the number of abortions doubled in 7 years. It defies credulity to argue that more abortions were performed when it was illegal than when it was legalized. A comparison of birth rates is also instructive:

1966 3,606,274 18.4
1967 3,520,959 17.8
1968 3,501,564 17.5
1969 3,600,206 17.8
1970 3,731,386 18.4
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1972 3,258,411 15.6
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8

Note the drop in live births, both in birth rates and hard numbers, after the legalization of abortion.

In short, the argument that the number of abortions is not influenced by law is false.

Calypso Jones
01-19-2011, 08:47 PM
Big question is why didn't anyone report this guy long before now. Not only did he kill aborted live babies but he also was seriously harmful to women.. I thought that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate so called doctors who behaved as this murderer. You should read the evidence of botched abortions, near death complications. And that's only from survivors. What about those that died and no one knew he was to blame. He's a murderer as is his wife and his assistants. He's worse than a murderer. one might seriously consider calling him a serial killer.

MrsSmith
01-19-2011, 09:39 PM
Big question is why didn't anyone report this guy long before now. Not only did he kill aborted live babies but he also was seriously harmful to women.. I thought that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate so called doctors who behaved as this murderer. You should read the evidence of botched abortions, near death complications. And that's only from survivors. What about those that died and no one knew he was to blame. He's a murderer as is his wife and his assistants. He's worse than a murderer. one might seriously consider calling him a serial killer.



Gosnell has been named in more than three dozen civil suits going back 20 years. Of those, 10 are malpractice suits, the Fox News affiliate in Philadelphia reported.

According to Williams, Gosnell had "infected his patients with venereal diseases" and sent "woman after woman to the emergency room" with punctured uteri and intestines.

Sponsored Links
"We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion," the grand jury said.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/19/investigators-lack-of-oversight-allowed-pennsylvania-abortion/

Because so many people think just like Wilbur..."It was only fetuses, after all. They aren't really human." And poor minority women, no money to hire big-time lawyers. And anyway, no one wants to make feminists angry! They are far more concerned with the ability to murder children than the actual murder or abuse of their "sisters" here and worldwide. After all, extra kids can be inconvenient. And expensive. Time and money are both far more important than human lives. We have way too many humans already. I'm sure Wilbur and all our other feminists agree that there is just no point wasting time chasing down every "doctor" that lowers the overall carbon footprint of human kind. Gotta think of the Earth, after all!!

txradioguy
01-19-2011, 11:11 PM
Big question is why didn't anyone report this guy long before now. Not only did he kill aborted live babies but he also was seriously harmful to women.. I thought that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate so called doctors who behaved as this murderer. You should read the evidence of botched abortions, near death complications. And that's only from survivors. What about those that died and no one knew he was to blame. He's a murderer as is his wife and his assistants. He's worse than a murderer. one might seriously consider calling him a serial killer.

QFT

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 12:53 AM
But neither availability or rates correlate with the legal status of abortion.

So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common, because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered, and more dead women.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html



So I reiterate - if you'd like to see a world filled with more Dr. Kermits.... make abortion illegal.Bullshit. What happens is that more people carry to term and give the kids up for adoption. Nice attempt to scare people though. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 12:55 AM
Bullshit. What happens is that more people carry to term and give the kids up for adoption. Nice attempt to scare people though. :rolleyes:

Notice in Wilbur's quote how the baby would suffer but in a legal abortion it becomes a non-feeling fetus!

m00
01-20-2011, 12:56 AM
Bullshit. What happens is that more people carry to term and give the kids up for adoption. Nice attempt to scare people though. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure when people make a life decision as big as "abort or adopt" they last thing they think about is the legalities. The only question is access. And Wei Wu Wei has a point about that.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty sure when people make a life decision as big as "abort or adopt" they last thing they think about is the legalities.

nope - but they do have to think about availability. Truth of the matter is - whores need to stop spreading their legs for every tom and harry dick - or at least take fucking precautions when they do.

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 12:58 AM
But neither availability or rates correlate with the legal status of abortion.

So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common, because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered, and more dead women.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html



So I reiterate - if you'd like to see a world filled with more Dr. Kermits.... make abortion illegal.

You are saying here that it is a baby and it does suffer! You are owned Wilbur!!!

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 01:02 AM
Basically according to Wilbur in a legal abortion a baby is killed painlessly in a humane fashion, but in an illegal abortion a baby is painfully killed. what happened to the mindless non-sentient fetus?

m00
01-20-2011, 01:02 AM
nope - but they do have to think about availability. Truth of the matter is - whores need to stop spreading their legs for every tom and harry dick - or at least take fucking precautions when they do.

Well, it takes two to tango. Who even gets an abortion? Why on earth would anyone have unprotected sex if they didn't want children? There's like a million birth control options, and many of it is subsidized. Okay, even if the condom breaks there's still the morning after pill.

There's a liberal argument here somewhere that women have the "right" to reproduction. That's all well and good, but don't we as a society have a "right" not to have to deal with the consequences?

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 01:09 AM
Well, it takes two to tango. Who even gets an abortion? Why on earth would anyone have unprotected sex if they didn't want children? There's like a million birth control options, and many of it is subsidized. Okay, even if the condom breaks there's still the morning after pill.

There's a liberal argument here somewhere that women have the "right" to reproduction. That's all well and good, but don't we as a society have a "right" not to have to deal with the consequences?

Oh it does take two to tango - but the majority of abortion recipients are repeat customers and someone who has to go back again and again for abortions - that there is a whore.

m00
01-20-2011, 01:13 AM
Oh it does take two to tango - but the majority of abortion recipients are repeat customers and someone who has to go back again and again for abortions - that there is a whore.

Not necessarily. Could just be someone incredibly unclear on "cause" and "effect." I think a lot of people don't get on some deep fundamental level that their actions have consequences. Personally, I blame the fluoride in the water. :D

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 02:00 AM
There's a liberal argument here somewhere that women have the "right" to reproduction. That's all well and good, but don't we as a society have a "right" not to have to deal with the consequences?
Here's the deal. Liberals want abortion on demand and want it funded by tax dollars. So, to them, women have the right to abort a baby and they have a right to my money to do it even though it infringes on my moral rights. So, liberals are all for rights but if their rights infringes on someone who doesn't agree with them, tough titty.

wilbur
01-20-2011, 08:14 AM
The Guttmacher Institute is a division of Planned Parenthood, and they cannot be taken seriously as a source of data. In this case, the statement is clearly false. The number of abortions performed in the US exploded after Roe Vs. Wade legalized it. The first column shows the Guttmacher abortion stats, the second, the CDC numbers.

1973 744,600 615,831
1974 898,600 763,476
1975 1,034,200 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,700 1,251,921
1980 1,553,900 1,297,606

In both tracks, the number of abortions doubled in 7 years. It defies credulity to argue that more abortions were performed when it was illegal than when it was legalized. A comparison of birth rates is also instructive:

1966 3,606,274 18.4
1967 3,520,959 17.8
1968 3,501,564 17.5
1969 3,600,206 17.8
1970 3,731,386 18.4
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1972 3,258,411 15.6
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8

Note the drop in live births, both in birth rates and hard numbers, after the legalization of abortion.

In short, the argument that the number of abortions is not influenced by law is false.

Funny, you cite the Family Research Council in same-sex marriage threads, and suddenly you become critical of sources? In any case, Guttmacher isn't an "arm" of PP for going on 35 years now, and I've never seen their facts disputed or discredited - even by those who disagree with their interpretations of them. They simply provide the most comprehensive body of research on abortion.

First problem with your analysis: Abortion rates have been declining over the years, and are much closer to the levels they were before Row, despite little or no change in legal status.

Second problem: The negative correlation between contraception and unintended pregnancy, and positive correlation between unintended pregnancy is abortion attested by research that looks at more than just the US.

Worldwide, countries with the most restrictive abortion laws perform just as a many (and sometimes more) abortions that nations with less legal restrictions. Given these facts, any correlation between the rise of abortion and Roe, looks likely to be due to other factors - or a combination of other factors where legality was only a small piece.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/unintendedpregnancyandabortion.aspx



However, the relationship between contraceptive use and abortion is not always so clear. A 2003 study from the Guttmacher Institute found that rising contraceptive use correlates with reduced abortion incidence when fertility is constant. In cases where fertility rates are falling, abortion rates and contraceptive use frequently rise simultaneously because contraception supply cannot keep up with demand or because public education campaigns have not reached the general population. For example, in South Korea, contraceptive use and the rate of abortion rose simultaneously until abortion rates peaked in the late 1970s. After that time, abortion rates fell while contraceptive use continued to rise. During this period, South Korea was undergoing a transition from high to low fertility; part of the demand for smaller families was being met through abortion.8

wilbur
01-20-2011, 08:16 AM
Oh it does take two to tango - but the majority of abortion recipients are repeat customers and someone who has to go back again and again for abortions - that there is a whore.

Another falsehood - Most women have only one abortion, though a significant amount have two. Then very few ever have any more.

wilbur
01-20-2011, 08:17 AM
Bullshit. What happens is that more people carry to term and give the kids up for adoption. Nice attempt to scare people though. :rolleyes:

I cited facts -you pulled shit out of your ass. I win.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 08:30 AM
Another falsehood - Most women have only one abortion, though a significant amount have two. Then very few ever have any more.

50% of all abortions are repeat customers. That's slightly more than significant. 50% are coming back again and again - while less than 10% are due to rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That leaves 90%+ of abortions being done as delayed birth control and of those - over half are repeat customers. If you have to come back for an abortion more than once - you're a whore.

Calypso Jones
01-20-2011, 08:30 AM
There have been stories written by women, or reported on, and not long ago about women using abortion as birth control. Meaning, they've had upwards of 3 or more abortions. If American women carried unwanted babies to term, gave them up for adoption, and that adoption process became less difficult, there'd be more parents raising adopted wanted children in this country rather than going to europe etc to bring them here.

Calypso Jones
01-20-2011, 08:33 AM
I don't know what's happening to Pennsylvania and their failure to protect a targetting set of their citizenry. Pennsylvania, in spite of their Quaker leaniongs, or at the very least, quaker history, seem less likely to protect the unborn, just born and school kids. These abortion doctors and this latest is an absolute ghoul. Then the middle eastern heritage doctor in Stroudsburg in 96 who ordered the gynecological exams of 11 year old/6th graders to check for genital warts, WITHOUT parental knowledge and permission. The state courts upheld the actions of the doctor and school. AGAINST the parents and children.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 08:33 AM
I cited facts -you pulled shit out of your ass. I win. Facts? Facts like global warming is a fact? :rolleyes:


I'm citing history. You guys on the left like to claim that abortion is health care. Well people consume healthcare directly proportional to the levels of availability. The more available it is - the more they consume it whether they need it or not. It's a verifiable historical fact - especially when people lie to themselves and others about the costs of it.

wilbur
01-20-2011, 08:34 AM
50% of all abortions are repeat customers. That's slightly more than significant. 50% are coming back again and again

No, roughly %48 have 2 abortions.... then %25 have had 3 or more.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 08:37 AM
No, roughly %48 have 2 abortions.... then %25 have had 3 or more.

so HALF have repeat abortions - and when you discount the less than 10% who have abortions for any kind of actual reason - rape, incest, save the life of the mother - that 48% shoots up to OVER half and the stat about 3 or more is mostly guess work. They don't keep accurate stats except to ask if the person has has more than one.

linda22003
01-20-2011, 08:47 AM
If you have to come back for an abortion more than once - you're a whore.

You're quick to call only women names. What would you call the men who keep impregnating them? They're not accomplishing it by themselves.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 08:49 AM
You're quick to call only women names. What would you call the men who keep impregnating them? They're not accomplishing it by themselves.

scum - but then it's not like the man has access to the 'right' to have an abortion so . . . until you women grant us equal access . . . whores.

linda22003
01-20-2011, 08:50 AM
Well, at least you had one. Points for that.

PoliCon
01-20-2011, 08:54 AM
Well, at least you had one. Points for that.

call a spade a spade. So do you support equal access to the 'right' to an abortion for fathers?

Novaheart
01-20-2011, 08:54 AM
Bullshit. What happens is that more people carry to term and give the kids up for adoption. Nice attempt to scare people though. :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea what the demographics of abortion is? Do you honestly think that there are millions of people waiting in line to adopt the children that would have been born to those women? We would be like Eastern Europe with kids piling up in the abandoned palaces of the robber barons. Actually, turning the Biltmore into an orphanage would be a much better use for it than it currently enjoys.

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 09:55 AM
Thoughts about morality on abortion that the left wishes to ignore and the slippery slope.

1. Life begins at conception. That is not a "personal belief". That is a scientific fact.

2. To be careless and casual about life at the beginning of life is a road to being careless about life at the end which ultimately leads to Abortion being promoted by people who are fond of Eugenics

3. Abortion advocates admit that it is just another method of birth control as casually as the pill or a condom

4. Casual attitudes about abortion have led to further exploitation, such as partial birth abortion

5. Less than 1% of all abortions are because of rape or incest. The pro choice voices would have you believe it's around 50%, yet use this strawman argument as one of their tenets

6. When a woman gets pregnant, people ask how her "baby" is. They don't ask how the "fetus" is doing. It's a person's attitude and use of Orwellian speak that twists language.

7 . Unborn children have "property" and "inheritance rights"....so by law they have a "legal" right to property....thus they have a right to life.

8. Abortion steals a life in order to convenience the life of another

9. The Hippocratic oath for Doctor's states to "do no harm". Ironically, it was first at the University of Pittsburgh that the medical department changed it's oath from the Hippocratic Oath to the Declaration of Geneva in 1971. The students deleted 'from the time of conception' from the clause

10. Abortion politics has never really been about someone's "rights". It has been about promoting an Ideology.

I don't have the link to this so feel free to look it up....but I read earlier last year that during Nazi Germany's height, the abortion rate in Germany was around 40%. In the early part of this decade it was around 38% in the U.S.
If that's true, then we have a big problem with our morality.

Gingersnap
01-20-2011, 09:58 AM
There have been stories written by women, or reported on, and not long ago about women using abortion as birth control. Meaning, they've had upwards of 3 or more abortions. If American women carried unwanted babies to term, gave them up for adoption, and that adoption process became less difficult, there'd be more parents raising adopted wanted children in this country rather than going to europe etc to bring them here.

This is exactly true. I know quite a few people who have completed the non-U.S. adoption process and every single one of them has first tried to adopt here. They were unable to because they were the wrong color (this happens surprisingly often) or because they didn't feel confident enough to take on a teen or preteen who had been in foster care for many years.

It's not that people are unwilling to adopt, it's that the process excludes so many people racially and there are so few infants available for those few who qualify. :(

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 10:02 AM
6. When a woman gets pregnant, people ask how her "baby" is. They don't ask how the "fetus" is doing. It's a person's attitude and use of Orwellian speak that twists language.


Even Wilbur showed a concern for the "baby" feeling pain during an illegal abortion, of course in a legal abortion it becomes a fetus again and feels no pain.


But neither availability or rates correlate with the legal status of abortion.

So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common, because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered, and more dead women.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html



So I reiterate - if you'd like to see a world filled with more Dr. Kermits.... make abortion illegal.

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 10:30 AM
Even Wilbur showed a concern for the "baby" feeling pain during an illegal abortion, of course in a legal abortion it becomes a fetus again and feels no pain.

Yeah...it's the twisting of the language when it's convenient. It's all based on our convenience.

I'd like to invite advocates of pro choice to go and check out the pamphlets that doctors give to woman who've had a miscarriage.
One of the statements in the literature states "you've lost your "baby" and don't let anyone tell you differently".

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 10:38 AM
Yeah...it's the twisting of the language when it's convenient. It's all based on our convenience.

I'd like to invite advocates of pro choice to go and check out the pamphlets that doctors give to woman who've had a miscarriage.
One of the statements in the literature states "you've lost your "baby" and don't let anyone tell you differently".

Plain and simple, people like Wilbur believe what defines a person as a human is merely a decision made between a woman and the government, it has nothing to do with medical facts, morality or common sense, for them a simple decision makes the difference between a child playing in the middle of the floor and a lifeless body with a scissors in the back of it's head.

wilbur
01-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Even Wilbur showed a concern for the "baby" feeling pain during an illegal abortion, of course in a legal abortion it becomes a fetus again and feels no pain.

Let me break it down simply for you Rock, so that its clear just how you are misrepresenting my position. I mean.. this is just batshit insane.

After the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering, and feeling might be possible.
Before the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering and feeling are impossible.

I have never made any claims as absurd as to say that legality of a procedure determines whether a fetus feels pain. My position the entire time across the hundreds of posts I've made on this topic, has been that the legality of abortion should basically end with the existence of the mind in a fetus, which among other things, brings about the possibility of perceiving pain.

Its ironic (though I'm sure its lost on you) that you continually make wise cracks and cocky little jabs about how I'm such a crazy person, yet you so far have comprehend exactly nothing about my actual position, on which I have been exceedingly clear, time and time again.

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 10:43 AM
Let me break it down simply for it Rock, so that its clear just how you are misrepresenting my position.

After the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering, and feeling might be possible.
Before the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering and feeling are impossible.

I have never made any claims as absurd as to say that legality of a procedure determines whether a fetus feels pain. My position the entire time across the hundreds of posts I've made on this topic, has been that the legality of abortion should coincide with the existence of the mind in a fetus, which among other things, brings about the possibility of perceiving pain.

Its ironic (though I'm sure its lost on you) that you continually make wise cracks and cocky little jabs about how I'm such a crazy person, yet you so far have failed to even comprehend the basics of my position, on which I have been exceedingly clear, time and time again.

abortions performed where the baby likely suffered
:rolleyes:

wilbur
01-20-2011, 10:50 AM
:rolleyes:

Yea, let's try reading the whole sentence...



So what actually happens when you outlaw abortion, is that late-term, dangerous abortions become more common (THIS ESTABLISHES THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT LATE-TERM ABORTIONS) because it will take more time to locate a willing, shady doctor (or nurse, or paramedic, or dude who took a biology class once). That means more botched abortions, more abortions performed where the baby likely suffered (ie, LATE TERM ABORTIONS), and more dead women.

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 11:00 AM
Yea, let's try reading the whole sentence...

You have never had any qualms about late term abortions before.









abortions performed where the baby likely suffered

wilbur
01-20-2011, 12:58 PM
You have never had any qualms about late term abortions before.

Uh, you couldn't be more wrong on this one. I have qualms about abortion once there is a possibility of a mind - which means on and after ~22 weeks. Only made this clear about a million times around here...

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 01:49 PM
Uh, you couldn't be more wrong on this one. I have qualms about abortion once there is a possibility of a mind - which means on and after ~22 weeks. Only made this clear about a million times around here...

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wilbur-owned-demotivational-posters-1295539924.jpg

Odysseus
01-20-2011, 01:51 PM
Funny, you cite the Family Research Council in same-sex marriage threads, and suddenly you become critical of sources? In any case, Guttmacher isn't an "arm" of PP for going on 35 years now, and I've never seen their facts disputed or discredited - even by those who disagree with their interpretations of them. They simply provide the most comprehensive body of research on abortion.
When a group is founded by Planned Parenthood, and spends its time upholding their agenda, I question their objectivity, especially given the sheer volume of disinformation spread by abortion advocates whenever their rice bowls are threatened. The best examples are the claims during the partial birth abortion debate, in which abortionists lied outright about the number of procedures committed, the circumstances and the timelines.
The Family Research Council cited independent research, often by pro-gay institutions. It was simply a convenient point to find the data. I notice, however, that you never refuted either the statistics or the arguments that they advanced about how gays deal with monogamy and relationship issues.

First problem with your analysis: Abortion rates have been declining over the years, and are much closer to the levels they were before Row, despite little or no change in legal status.

How does that change the fact that the abortion rate doubled within seven years after legalization? You are arguing that the number of abortions is a constant, and that all legalization does is transfer them to legal providers. The numbers demonstrate that this is not the case. For your argument to hold water, the current decline in reported abortions would have to correlate to a ban, which has not happened.


Second problem: The negative correlation between contraception and unintended pregnancy, and positive correlation between unintended pregnancy is abortion attested by research that looks at more than just the US.
Again, false. In fact, as contraception has increased, so has sexual activity, resulting in a greater percentage of failures of contraception and more unintended pregnancies. Even Planned Parenthood reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became pregnant. And if contraception prevented illegitimate births, then the rate would have dropped, wouldn't it? In fact, the rate almost tripled in just twenty years, from 10.7% in 1970 to 26.2% in 1990. Children with Single Mothers doubled during the same period, from 11% to 22%. And those numbers are even higher today.


Worldwide, countries with the most restrictive abortion laws perform just as a many (and sometimes more) abortions that nations with less legal restrictions. Given these facts, any correlation between the rise of abortion and Roe, looks likely to be due to other factors - or a combination of other factors where legality was only a small piece.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/unintendedpregnancyandabortion.aspx
What facts? That's an assertion. The facts are the numbers that I've presented, which contradict your assertion.

Even Wilbur showed a concern for the "baby" feeling pain during an illegal abortion, of course in a legal abortion it becomes a fetus again and feels no pain.


Let me break it down simply for you Rock, so that its clear just how you are misrepresenting my position. I mean.. this is just batshit insane.

After the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering, and feeling might be possible.
Before the 20th week of pregnancy, pain, suffering and feeling are impossible.

So, if a child is sufficiently anesthetized, there is no reason not to terminate his/her life, even after birth?

I have never made any claims as absurd as to say that legality of a procedure determines whether a fetus feels pain. My position the entire time across the hundreds of posts I've made on this topic, has been that the legality of abortion should basically end with the existence of the mind in a fetus, which among other things, brings about the possibility of perceiving pain.
You are wrong. Prenatal development occurs far earlier than you claim. The spinal column and nervous system are forming by the end of the third week of pregnancy. By the fifth week, eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop, and brain waves are detectable in the sixth week. Kicking and swimming start in the seventh week and by the eighth week, every organ is in place and the baby can begin to hear. At eleven weeks, the baby can grasp objects and has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation. Babies at twelve weeks have been observed sucking their thumbs on ultrasound. Twenty weeks? Might as well be applying for college by then...


Its ironic (though I'm sure its lost on you) that you continually make wise cracks and cocky little jabs about how I'm such a crazy person, yet you so far have comprehend exactly nothing about my actual position, on which I have been exceedingly clear, time and time again.
It's not that we think that you are crazy, except in the sense that you have no concept of right and wrong. That might be an indication of sociopathy, but you claim to have a moral sense, it's just that it's completely divorced from any concept of humanity. To put it another way, you need a bit less Spock and a bit more McCoy.

Novaheart
01-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Thoughts about morality on abortion that the left wishes to ignore and the slippery slope.

1. Life begins at conception. That is not a "personal belief". That is a scientific fact.


By this definition millions of abortions take place naturally and artificially without being noticed. So if there is a distinction to be made, then where that distinction is made is back on the table.




2. To be careless and casual about life at the beginning of life is a road to being careless about life at the end which ultimately leads to Abortion being promoted by people who are fond of Eugenics



Whether a person is aborting due to rape, self induced health conditions, whim, or eugenics is ultimately irrelevant. However, of all of those eugenics would be the most noble of purposes.



3. Abortion advocates admit that it is just another method of birth control as casually as the pill or a condom .

Reproduction advocates admit that having babies for the heck of it, to rope someone else into marriage, or simply to collect welfare is just another aspect of parenthood.




4. Casual attitudes about abortion have led to further exploitation, such as partial birth abortion.

That's a claim without support. Historically, unwanted babies have been killed after live birth and the reported as still born.




5. Less than 1% of all abortions are because of rape or incest. The pro choice voices would have you believe it's around 50%, yet use this strawman argument as one of their tenets .

The percentages don't matter. Either it's immoral or it isn't. If it's immoral, then it's always immoral with one exception: when the life of the mother is in imminent danger. The moral right to self defense is one of the oldest organic moral precepts.




6. When a woman gets pregnant, people ask how her "baby" is. They don't ask how the "fetus" is doing. It's a person's attitude and use of Orwellian speak that twists language.

People also speak of the dead as if they were still living. When discussion science or philosophy you don't use a common person standard.




7 . Unborn children have "property" and "inheritance rights"....so by law they have a "legal" right to property....thus they have a right to life.



I'm pretty sure that you're incorrect about that.




I don't have the link to this so feel free to look it up....but I read earlier last year that during Nazi Germany's height, the abortion rate in Germany was around 40%. In the early part of this decade it was around 38% in the U.S.
If that's true, then we have a big problem with our morality.

Nazi Germany built airplanes and automobiles. The US builds airplanes and automobiles. You do the math.

noonwitch
01-20-2011, 02:06 PM
Wait...isn't this the exact thing that all of the pro murder zealots claim will happen if Roe is repealed?

Yet here it is...right there in front of us with abortion on demand still legal.

:rolleyes:





Glad it's closed and the Eugenics folks at Planned Parenthood are out of a job.

Oh and BTW some freaking friend you are.




WTF are you? Jack Kevorkians evil step sister or something? Or do you just get your jollies taking pregnant women to go kill an innocent life?


The first case was a college friend who drank a fifth of Jack Daniels the night after she found out she was pregnant. She wasn't going to stop drinking for 9 months. She killed her fetus that night, the abortion was just a formality.

The other situation was different matter, and one I'm not at liberty to discuss fully. There was a reason I used the wording I did about medicaid and parental consent laws, though.


Incidentally, the reason why the PP clinic in Kalamazoo has closed is because some freaks kept torching it. Is that a good thing in your opinion? Do the ends justify the means?

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 02:09 PM
By this definition millions of abortions take place naturally and artificially without being noticed. So if there is a distinction to be made, then where that distinction is made is back on the table.


Whether a person is aborting due to rape, self induced health conditions, whim, or eugenics is ultimately irrelevant. However, of all of those eugenics would be the most noble of purposes.

Reproduction advocates admit that having babies for the heck of it, to rope someone else into marriage, or simply to collect welfare is just another aspect of parenthood.


That's a claim without support. Historically, unwanted babies have been killed after live birth and the reported as still born.

The percentages don't matter. Either it's immoral or it isn't. If it's immoral, then it's always immoral with one exception: when the life of the mother is in imminent danger. The moral right to self defense is one of the oldest organic moral precepts.

People also speak of the dead as if they were still living. When discussion science or philosophy you don't use a common person standard.

I'm pretty sure that you're incorrect about that.



You set up many fallacy arguments. Life begins at conception is my scientifically proven opinion.

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 02:11 PM
Incidentally, the reason why the PP clinic in Kalamazoo has closed is because some freaks kept torching it. Is that a good thing in your opinion? Do the ends justify the means?

No..they do not justify the means.

txradioguy
01-20-2011, 02:20 PM
so HALF have repeat abortions - and when you discount the less than 10% who have abortions for any kind of actual reason - rape, incest, save the life of the mother - that 48% shoots up to OVER half and the stat about 3 or more is mostly guess work. They don't keep accurate stats except to ask if the person has has more than one.


If there is a positive to all the abortions going on in this country...is that they are by and large happing among Liberals. Which is causing an overall decline in younger...next generation Liberal voters. Which is why the current crop of Libtards is having to use every way to lie cheat and steal they can to hold onto office.

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 02:21 PM
If there is a positive to all the abortions going on in this country...is that they are by and large happing among Liberals. Which is causing an overall decline in younger...next generation Liberal voters. Which is why the current crop of Libtards is having to use every way to lie cheat and steal they can to hold onto office.


Except it's the low life ignorant dependant classes that are doing all the breeding.

txradioguy
01-20-2011, 02:27 PM
Except it's the low life ignorant dependant classes that are doing all the breeding.

Ahhh yes the Democratic base. Which is shrinking year by year. They may be breeding...but the high rates of crime...death by OD abortion etc ensure that they don't get out of the situation they are in today.

ANd the people they continually vote for are the ones that put them there and gave them the resources with witch to continue their self perpetuating hell.

wilbur
01-23-2011, 04:53 PM
How does that change the fact that the abortion rate doubled within seven years after legalization? You are arguing that the number of abortions is a constant, and that all legalization does is transfer them to legal providers. The numbers demonstrate that this is not the case. For your argument to hold water, the current decline in reported abortions would have to correlate to a ban, which has not happened.


For YOUR hypothesis to hold water, we should see a worldwide correlation between abortion and legality. We don't. I'll repeat, that worldwide abortion rates tend to be the same even under strict abortion prohibitions. And abortion rates have been steadily declining for years in the US, and are almost to the same levels as they were before their growth.

During the time surrounding Roe, there was quite the constellation of changes regarding human sexuality, and family life changes which may have contributed to the change in abortion rates.



Again, false. In fact, as contraception has increased, so has sexual activity, resulting in a greater percentage of failures of contraception and more unintended pregnancies. Even Planned Parenthood reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became pregnant. And if contraception prevented illegitimate births, then the rate would have dropped, wouldn't it? In fact, the rate almost tripled in just twenty years, from 10.7% in 1970 to 26.2% in 1990. Children with Single Mothers doubled during the same period, from 11% to 22%. And those numbers are even higher today.


Gee, I wonder if the amount of single mothers could have contributed to the rise in abortions?


So, if a child is sufficiently anesthetized, there is no reason not to terminate his/her life, even after birth?

No, I have repeatedly said the existence of a mind is what is morally significant. Pain sensory is one of the morally significant qualities of a mind, but not the only one.



You are wrong. Prenatal development occurs far earlier than you claim. The spinal column and nervous system are forming by the end of the third week of pregnancy. By the fifth week, eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop, and brain waves are detectable in the sixth week. Kicking and swimming start in the seventh week and by the eighth week, every organ is in place and the baby can begin to hear. At eleven weeks, the baby can grasp objects and has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation. Babies at twelve weeks have been observed sucking their thumbs on ultrasound. Twenty weeks? Might as well be applying for college by then...


No, YOU are wrong. I can only presume here that you spent a whole 2 minutes searching Google till you found a random pro-life web page to pull this from. But sorry, its all bullshit.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise



But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

...

What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen.


Not only is there no realistic possibility of a mind before the 24th week, but even when the brain does begin working, the baby is sedated. So again, all these claims about swimming and "thumb sucking" are completely misguided. Nerves are forming, and nerves are firing as they grow - but these aren't signs of consciousness.

Rockntractor
01-23-2011, 04:57 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wilbur-owned-demotivational-posters-1295539924.jpg

Lanie
01-23-2011, 06:34 PM
Evil...pure freaking evil...and yet the abortion "rights" crowd will probably stick up for him and say that this is a witch hunt by conservatives

Not if they care about their cause they won't. There's too much evidence. As Linda said, anybody who does malpractice like this guy did should be without a license. Not that I'm one of the rights crowd anymore for the most part, but I already know. And I hope this guy is prosecuted big time.

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 10:48 PM
Not if they care about their cause they won't. There's too much evidence. As Linda said, anybody who does malpractice like this guy did should be without a license. Not that I'm one of the rights crowd anymore for the most part, but I already know. And I hope this guy is prosecuted big time.

he won't be. He's too old. They'll go soft because of his age. :rolleyes:

Lanie
01-23-2011, 11:23 PM
he won't be. He's too old. They'll go soft because of his age. :rolleyes:

Not with all those babies and a dead patient. They'll fry him for sure.

CueSi
01-23-2011, 11:42 PM
Big question is why didn't anyone report this guy long before now. Not only did he kill aborted live babies but he also was seriously harmful to women.. I thought that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate so called doctors who behaved as this murderer. You should read the evidence of botched abortions, near death complications. And that's only from survivors. What about those that died and no one knew he was to blame. He's a murderer as is his wife and his assistants. He's worse than a murderer. one might seriously consider calling him a serial killer.

He was reported ... MULTIPLE TIMES.... What burns my buiscuits is the National Abortion Federation inspected his "clinic" and denied him membership...AND DIDN'T REPORT HIM TO THE STATE! Yes, it may not have helped, but I honestly wonder...you knew he wasn't going to be up to YOUR standards, much less anyone else's...wouldn't it behoove them to keep the profession of "abortionist" safe (snicker) to go on the record?


Not with all those babies and a dead patient. They'll fry him for sure.

Multiple dead and mutilated patients. I counted three mutilated patients and three dead. One baby girl survived and is now a kindergardner.

~QC

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 11:46 PM
Not with all those babies and a dead patient. They'll fry him for sure.

nah. He's pro-abortion. That'll excuse a lot.

Lanie
01-23-2011, 11:52 PM
nah. He's pro-abortion. That'll excuse a lot.

All the pro-choicers I know are appalled by this case. For starters, third trimester abortion is really pushing it. Next, this is a serious case of malpractice.

PoliCon
01-23-2011, 11:53 PM
All the pro-choicers I know are appalled by this case. For starters, third trimester abortion is really pushing it. Next, this is a serious case of malpractice.

I'm telling you that he'll get off easy.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 05:01 AM
All the pro-choicers I know are appalled by this case. For starters, third trimester abortion is really pushing it. Next, this is a serious case of malpractice.

Well the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no problem with 3rd Trimester abortions.

The abortion butchers and their sycophants in NOW and NARL have no problem with it either.

The right to murder an innocent life is right there in the Constitution according to them.

And expect Planned Parenthood...along with the other named groups above to come to his defense.

Lanie
01-24-2011, 06:51 AM
Well the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no problem with 3rd Trimester abortions.

The abortion butchers and their sycophants in NOW and NARL have no problem with it either.

The right to murder an innocent life is right there in the Constitution according to them.

And expect Planned Parenthood...along with the other named groups above to come to his defense.

I don't know about Obama, but you're right about NOW and NARAL.

I would be money that PP won't defend them, but I don't have the money to risk. lol.

Lanie
01-24-2011, 07:11 AM
Oh my gosh, this is insane. I knew it (even though somebody told me elsewhere I was probably wrong).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/kermit-gosnell-abortion-c_n_812702.html


The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be "putting a barrier up to women" seeking abortions.

And NARAL was complaining that the PA laws were too burdensome.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20770

It appears Naral and PP are being silent, but I could be wrong. :(

All I can say is what the crap? Not only was legalizing abortion supposed to be about making it safe for women, but it was specifically poor women. If a woman had enough money, she could travel to a place to have it done safely (as Sarah Weddington supposedly did). Roe was actually meant to enable everybody to be able to have a "safe" abortion. This case involved primarily the poor and the blacks. The law (probably mostly white and middle class) left it alone for political reasons. That's so shameful.

PoliCon
01-24-2011, 09:29 AM
legalizing abortion was never about making it safe. :rolleyes: That's a smoke screen. It's always been about control and eugenics.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 09:49 AM
I don't know about Obama, but you're right about NOW and NARAL.

I would be money that PP won't defend them, but I don't have the money to risk. lol.

*ahem*


Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm

Odysseus
01-24-2011, 12:48 PM
For YOUR hypothesis to hold water, we should see a worldwide correlation between abortion and legality. We don't. I'll repeat, that worldwide abortion rates tend to be the same even under strict abortion prohibitions. And abortion rates have been steadily declining for years in the US, and are almost to the same levels as they were before their growth.
OTOH, for your hypothesis to hold water, we need to look at a nation in which abortion was legal, then banned, in order to see if the number of abortions remained constant. Fortunately, there is such a nation. Poland:

1990
Total abortions 59,417
Women’s deaths connected with pregnancy 90
Miscarriages 59,454
Cases of infanticide 31
Births 546,000

1994
Total abortions 782
Women’s deaths connected with pregnancy 57
Miscarriages 49,970
Cases of infanticide 17
Births 482,000

Now, you may want to try the argument that Polish women are simply traveling to other countries to abort. You'd be wrong. From http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/polandlaw.html:


Has the number of Polish abortions really declined, or have illegal abortions and/or abortions abroad made up the difference? Available evidence suggests that Polish abortions have significantly declined as a result of the current legislation:

Few European countries (and few of those near Poland) provide statistics on abortions by foreigners; what figures there are tend to refute claims of large numbers of abortions by Polish women. The United Kingdom reports an average of 16 Polish women per year obtaining abortions in England and Wales (1994-2005). Germany reports an average of only 471 abortions per year for foreign women from 1999 to 2005. Sweden reports an average of only 408 abortions per year (1997-2006) of unspecified residence. The Netherlands has long provided abortions to large numbers of women from other West European countries, but available data does not indicate large numbers of Polish abortions since 1989 (one source suggests a couple hundred per year).

--snip--

One source (http://www.federa.org.pl/english/report96/rap96_1.htm) claims that most Polish women obtaining abortions abroad go to the Ukraine, Lithuania, Kaliningrad, Belarus, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. This source claims 15 Polish women per week obtaining abortions in one Berlin clinic (which would be 780 per year), and claims one agency facilitated 1200 abortions for Polish women in 1993-1994 in a southern neighbor, presumably either the Czech Republic or Slovakia.

This source (http://www.federa.org.pl/english/report96/rap96_2.htm) extrapolates these figures to 16,000 per year in 1995 obtained abroad and suggests twice that number illegally performed in Poland, for a total of 40,000-50,000. No basis is given for the figure on illegal abortions. Similarly, some organizations lobbying against the Polish anti-abortion law claim that numbers of annual abortions in Poland now are higher than the reported legal abortions in the late 1980s, again without giving a basis for such figures. Such claims are clearly unsupportable; even an article in Studies in Family Planning (David and Titkow, 1994, 25:239-242) acknowledged "the evidence is persuasive that fewer Polish women are becoming pregnant."

And, in their attempt to make the same claim that you do, the Guttmacher Institute specifically excluded Poland's stats from their tables. From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html:

In Poland, the legal abortion rate is currently near zero as a consequence of new restrictions (data not shown). Nevertheless, many Poles reportedly seek abortion services in nearby countries or from illegal providers in Poland.

During the time surrounding Roe, there was quite the constellation of changes regarding human sexuality, and family life changes which may have contributed to the change in abortion rates.
Yes, birth control pills became broadly available, as did other forms of contraception. These should have led to decreased abortion rates, shouldn't they? But they didn't, since the increases in sex outiside of marriage that resulted from easy access to birth control resulted in massive increases in pregnancies. Why? Partly because of the failure rate of contraception, partly because of improper use, and partly because the social climate increased sexual activity, even when birth control wasn't convenient. Unintended consequences, Wilbur.

Gee, I wonder if the amount of single mothers could have contributed to the rise in abortions?
I'm sure that they did. And what contributed to the rise in the number of single mothers?


No, I have repeatedly said the existence of a mind is what is morally significant. Pain sensory is one of the morally significant qualities of a mind, but not the only one.
Why is the existence of a mind morally significant? A fetus that hasn't taken a breath outside of the womb isn't any more aware of its existence than a fetus at 20 weeks. Why is it acceptable to destroy it at 20 weeks, but not 24?


No, YOU are wrong. I can only presume here that you spent a whole 2 minutes searching Google till you found a random pro-life web page to pull this from. But sorry, its all bullshit.

Hardly. Every aspect of fetal development that I cited is accurate, but since it didn't come from a medical journal, let's see if we can find the same data in a source that you can't refute.... Ah, here we go, from Developmental Review, 20, 81-98, 1999), FETAL BRAIN & COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Brain Research Laboratory:


The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath,

So, everything that I stated about fetal development, in terms of brain function, is accurate (and I'm sure that the develpment of the other body parts is, as well, so what it all comes down to is the ephemeral state that you call consciousness. In medicine (and we are discussing medical, not philosophical consciousness), consciousness is defined as: a patient's alertness and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from alert, oriented to time and place, and communicative, through disorientation, then delirium, then loss of any meaningful communication, and ending with loss of movement in response to painful stimulation. So, pain reaction is an indicator of consciousness. When does a fetus react to pain or other stimulus? A lot earlier than 24 weeks.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise



But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

Not only is there no realistic possibility of a mind before the 24th week, but even when the brain does begin working, the baby is sedated. So again, all these claims about swimming and "thumb sucking" are completely misguided. Nerves are forming, and nerves are firing as they grow - but these aren't signs of consciousness.
Just because you have no realistic possibility of demonstrating a mind at your age doesn't mean that everyone is in the same boat. The issue is not mental development, but brain activity. Does the brain regulate breathing? Heart beat? Yep. At 17 weaks, the heart is regulated by the fetal brain, and reflexes like sucking and swallowing have begun. If Terry Schiavo had shown those reflexes, she'd still be alive.

In fact, what you refer to as "consciousness" actually occurs post-partum. From the previous article:


Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.

So, how far after birth are you willing to abort?

And NARAL was complaining that the PA laws were too burdensome.

The laws must have been too burdnesome. That's why the state didn't bother enforcing them. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
01-26-2011, 06:44 PM
Michelle Malkin has the grand jury indictment here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/69618219/Grand Jury Report -- Philly Abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell Multiple Counts of Murder (January 2011). This is far worse than what was reported in the media. This guy was a sick puppy by any standards, regardless of your feelings on abortion.